That I'd say is fair enough (in my view), but someone needs to ensure subsilver3 is actively updated from release to release.Senky wrote:Bliss, just realise the difference: you say to endusers that they can use subsilver3. They have to be happy, because it looks identically to subsilver2. So problem with end users is solved. And now we, developers, are happy, too. I swear I will include style changes to subsilver3 in any of my MODs (extensions eventually) if subsilver2 will be removed .
Well, I just wonder why end users disagree with switching from subsilver2 to subsilver3...
[RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
So would not it be enough to include subsilver3 into core package and maintain it just like prosilver?
Or team wants only 1 style in the core?
Or team wants only 1 style in the core?
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Please don't mix several things into one.
From my point of view, removal of subsilver2 is an absolutely separate issue, inclusion of any other (subsilver/non-subsilver 3/4/etc) style into the package should be discussed as a different RFC (if needed).
Thus, I'd ask to keep discussion within the current RFC title, thanks.
From my point of view, removal of subsilver2 is an absolutely separate issue, inclusion of any other (subsilver/non-subsilver 3/4/etc) style into the package should be discussed as a different RFC (if needed).
Thus, I'd ask to keep discussion within the current RFC title, thanks.
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Well, it is not as off-topic as it may look like. Main point why subsilver2 was not removet until today is, that end-users didnot like it. If you want to convince them why to remove subsilver2, you need to give them replacement option. That would be in form of subsilver3. So removal of subsilver2 and adding of subsilver3 as core style should be discussed together.
But ok, let's discuss removal itself.
But ok, let's discuss removal itself.
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
It wasn't announced anywhere. Where are those users asking to keep it?Unknown Bliss wrote:Arty, I simply think that if we remove subsilver2; after publicly saying that we would still release subsilver2 with 3.1 after the general users asking to keep it; that it would upset a lot of people.
Some do want to keep it because they are using it on their 3.0 forums. But I'm sure they are not aware that subsilver in 3.1 does not have same functionality as prosilver, that extensions will not support it.
Eventually it will have to go anyway and there will always be users who'd want to keep it because their forums still use old layout with tables. It will happen sooner or later, the question is, why later instead of sooner?
What majority are you talking about? Those who did say that they want to keep it, said it 2 years ago. Things have changed since then.Unknown Bliss wrote:The whole point of discussion on this board is to decide if a change is useful to the majority of users. The majority of users have said they want to keep it supported for one more release.
2 years ago style authors had to support IE6 because it was still used by large enough amount of people (probably more than there are IE7 users today), so does it mean we still have to support IE6?
And they will keep using it as long as its available. Following your logic, it will never be removed because there will always be users relying on it.Unknown Bliss wrote:I know we don't like it but a lot of people still use subsilver2, and you can't just remove it straight away, it should be phased out.
Formerly known as CyberAlien.
Free phpBB styles | Premium responsive XenForo styles | Iconify - modern open source replacement for glyph fonts
Free phpBB styles | Premium responsive XenForo styles | Iconify - modern open source replacement for glyph fonts
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
If subsilver3 didn't exist, then I wouldn't quite mind having subsilver2 around. With subsilver3 whose aspect is exactly the same as subsilver2 except the code is much cleaner and HTML5 standards compliant (I don't remember if it has the HTML5 doctype or not), I vote destroy completely subsilver2 from everywhere you can and place subsilver3 in its place.
- DavidIQ
- Customisations Team Leader
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
- Location: Earth
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
That sounds like we'd end up exactly where we started. Besides not supporting an outdated style, we are also wanting to get away from maintaining 2 styles in base.brunoais wrote:If subsilver3 didn't exist, then I wouldn't quite mind having subsilver2 around. With subsilver3 whose aspect is exactly the same as subsilver2 except the code is much cleaner and HTML5 standards compliant (I don't remember if it has the HTML5 doctype or not), I vote destroy completely subsilver2 from everywhere you can and place subsilver3 in its place.
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Guys, take a men decision (I hope there are not any womens in that discussion).
My mods:
Auto Backup [MODDB] | Reputation System [RC]
Auto Backup [MODDB] | Reputation System [RC]
- EXreaction
- Registered User
- Posts: 1555
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 2:15 am
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
I'm pretty sure that subsilver3, at least according to the details it lists, only uses a modified theme to create the design and uses all of the templates from prosilver, so that would cut out probably more than 75% of the maintenance requirements.DavidIQ wrote:That sounds like we'd end up exactly where we started. Besides not supporting an outdated style, we are also wanting to get away from maintaining 2 styles in base.brunoais wrote:If subsilver3 didn't exist, then I wouldn't quite mind having subsilver2 around. With subsilver3 whose aspect is exactly the same as subsilver2 except the code is much cleaner and HTML5 standards compliant (I don't remember if it has the HTML5 doctype or not), I vote destroy completely subsilver2 from everywhere you can and place subsilver3 in its place.
Re: [RFC|Rejected] Removal of subsilver2
Of course they know it won't have all the functionality, they have been living with not being supported by most mods already. And extensions do support subsilver if the author chooses to, it is up to the author (which is how it is in 3.0, nothing has changed?). There is nothing that prevents subsilver2 support in any part of extensions (template events or extensions core) so please do not use this argument as it is simply a guess that mod/ext authors will change from their current way of some supporting subsilver, some not, to no ext/mod authors supporting subsilver2.Arty wrote:It wasn't announced anywhere. Where are those users asking to keep it?Unknown Bliss wrote:Arty, I simply think that if we remove subsilver2; after publicly saying that we would still release subsilver2 with 3.1 after the general users asking to keep it; that it would upset a lot of people.
Some do want to keep it because they are using it on their 3.0 forums. But I'm sure they are not aware that subsilver in 3.1 does not have same functionality as prosilver, that extensions will not support it.
Eventually it will have to go anyway and there will always be users who'd want to keep it because their forums still use old layout with tables. It will happen sooner or later, the question is, why later instead of sooner?
What majority are you talking about? Those who did say that they want to keep it, said it 2 years ago. Things have changed since then.Unknown Bliss wrote:The whole point of discussion on this board is to decide if a change is useful to the majority of users. The majority of users have said they want to keep it supported for one more release.
2 years ago style authors had to support IE6 because it was still used by large enough amount of people (probably more than there are IE7 users today), so does it mean we still have to support IE6?
And they will keep using it as long as its available. Following your logic, it will never be removed because there will always be users relying on it.Unknown Bliss wrote:I know we don't like it but a lot of people still use subsilver2, and you can't just remove it straight away, it should be phased out.
Where are they - Have you not read through this topic. Its probably easily the longest RFC on Area51 due to the amount of volume that came here after the blog post.
IE6 support was decapreated, not removed. You example proves my point?
Decapreating is a proven technique as a process to remove features. Just removing them straight off never works.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"