[Rejected] Removal of subsilver2 in 3.1

[MichaelC]

Arty, I assume that official entire dropping of subsilver2 (package+support) can't stop styles authors from creating custom styles on subsilver2's codebase, can it?
In this terms, does it really matter speaking about support job then? We will have to support such custom styles adapted to 3.2/4.0/whatever version anyway, if I don't miss something important.

If its officially dropped and someone releases subsilver2 anyway without ajax, we can probably deny subsilver2 based styles for not supporting phpBB functionality. It would also discourage style authors from using subsilver2 as base style, so we'll probably never see subsilver2 based styles, which is a good thing.

Just spoke to Raimon and he said it depends on the functionality missing, and missing AJAX would not be deny-worthy.

[Arty]

Even though only 1/4 of people who voted are in favor of keeping subsilver2, that quarter includes almost all team members (and probably only team members), so I'll drop this issue.

[FeyFre]

I'm who against of removal of ss2.
If anybody finds my message a bit offensive - probably it is so(c).

I'd like to bump this old topic in order to persuade developers to reconsider removing subsilver2.
Reasons to remove it:
Subsilver was great style for its time, but web moved forward since then. Tables are no longer used for layout. This style is outdated by 5-10 years.

So what? C language was invented in 1969 - let ban it because it is so old. Let write firmware on pure JavaScript/Python/Brainf*ck /whatever. Tables are more powerfull for layout than so beloved here "div's".

Only tiny minority of style authors use subsilver 2 as base style. That is counting real styles, not basic subsilver 2 clones with different header, footer, icons and colors. If someone really needs to use subsilver 2 layout as base for style, there is subsilver 3 style that looks just like subsilver 2, but is tableless.

I'm author. I want to use style with tables. I want it to be officially supported.

Mobile devices used more and more often to access internet. Subsilver 2 is everything that is wrong with web when it comes to mobile browsing. It is impossible to change subsilver to work on mobile devices.

Correct way to provide content for mobile devices - use layout w/o decorations. So called lo-fi version, which must/may be activated automatically regardless of style. By the way, my mpbile phone's browser shows forum on subsilver2 better, on prosilver - does not show at all. So I forced to get rid of phpbb3 because it cannot be used for mobile devices? -1 user here.

Since this discussion was opened, extensions were implemented. Almost all 3.0 mods already don't support subsilver2, 3.1 extensions won't support it ether. That means anyone using subsilver 2 will not be able to use most extensions. Keeping it will only cause problems.

Who does accepts MODs w/o subsilver2? Who develops MODs w/o mods w/o subsilver2? Punish them, not us - users of/developers for ss2.

Ajax. Ajax was implemented only in prosilver. If subsilver 2 is kept, users will complain about lack of ajax support in it.

[/quote] Is is NOT insinuations it is direct questions: So developers agreed that they are a half-developers? That they do what they want but not what they must to do? Why not to develop Ajax subsystem which does not cares where to to be integrated?

Just reminded my opinions.

PS: I voted for keeping ss2 but obliviously I'm not a team member.

[brunoais]

I'm who against of removal of ss2.
If anybody finds my message a bit offensive - probably it is so(c).

Not offensive, just the reasons you use are valueless. That's why I'm answering this post.

I'd like to bump this old topic in order to persuade developers to reconsider removing subsilver2.
Reasons to remove it:
Subsilver was great style for its time, but web moved forward since then. Tables are no longer used for layout. This style is outdated by 5-10 years.

So what? C language was invented in 1969 - let ban it because it is so old. Let write firmware on pure JavaScript/Python/Brainf*ck /whatever. Tables are more powerfull for layout than so beloved here "div's".

C has been updated, so has been HTML. C has received a new update to its standards this year. HTML has had its standards updated in the previous years and will still be updated in the following years. The current standard of HTML5 states that tables are not for page formatting, that's what we are doing, get rid of page formatting using tables.

Only tiny minority of style authors use subsilver 2 as base style. That is counting real styles, not basic subsilver 2 clones with different header, footer, icons and colors. If someone really needs to use subsilver 2 layout as base for style, there is subsilver 3 style that looks just like subsilver 2, but is tableless.

I'm author. I want to use style with tables. I want it to be officially supported.

If you like HTML3.2, you can keep working with HTML3.2 but don't mess with the guys who want HTML5 and what the new standards have to offer. The developers and most users of phpBB decided not to be linked to the deprecated versions of HTML, and use, instead, all that the new standards allow, so you must accept it. The only way to turn back is to convince a really large crowd that HTML5 is wrong and that HTML3.2 is the way to go, actually.

Mobile devices used more and more often to access internet. Subsilver 2 is everything that is wrong with web when it comes to mobile browsing. It is impossible to change subsilver to work on mobile devices.

Correct way to provide content for mobile devices - use layout w/o decorations. So called lo-fi version, which must/may be activated automatically regardless of style. By the way, my mpbile phone's browser shows forum on subsilver2 better, on prosilver - does not show at all. So I forced to get rid of phpbb3 because it cannot be used for mobile devices? -1 user here.

I don't know which phone you use. When I access the internet using my phone, which I bought in 2004, all appears correcty with the current phpBB3.1. Takes some time to process the page, but it works.

Since this discussion was opened, extensions were implemented. Almost all 3.0 mods already don't support subsilver2, 3.1 extensions won't support it ether. That means anyone using subsilver 2 will not be able to use most extensions. Keeping it will only cause problems.

Who does accepts MODs w/o subsilver2? Who develops MODs w/o mods w/o subsilver2? Punish them, not us - users of/developers for ss2.

Why should we punish the MOD makers? They are on their right to do their mods the way they want as long as they don't do it with malicious intents. If they decide not to support subsilver2, there is a reason for that, don't you think?

Ajax. Ajax was implemented only in prosilver. If subsilver 2 is kept, users will complain about lack of ajax support in it.

Is is NOT insinuations it is direct questions: So developers agreed that they are a half-developers? That they do what they want but not what they must to do? Why not to develop Ajax subsystem which does not cares where to to be integrated?

Subsilver2 is made in such way that AJAX is too hard to implement. By the way you write this, you show us that you don't know what AJAX is. You should study that more before stating a comment like that.

PS: I voted for keeping ss2 but obliviously I'm not a team member.

No need to be a team member to vote. You just need to use phpBB to have the right to vote .

[FeyFre]

The current standard of HTML5 states that tables are not for page formatting, that's what we are doing, get rid of page formatting using tables.

So the same states HTML 4. "Tables for holding data". Forum messages is data. Any doubts? So each message is row of table(by accident the same we can say for store back-end - SQL-like databases) Each row contains columns which hold value: poster name, message text/date, etc. Message can be decorated by div's INSIDE table cell but not instead. I can continue but have doubts somebody wants it.

If you like HTML3.2, you can keep working with HTML3.2 but don't mess with the guys who want HTML5 and what the new standards have to offer. The developers and most users of phpBB decided not to be linked to the deprecated versions of HTML, and use, instead, all that the new standards allow, so you must accept it. The only way to turn back is to convince a really large crowd that HTML5 is wrong and that HTML3.2 is the way to go, actually.

Actually I do not want HTML3.2/4/5, I prefer XHTML. We already have IE6 problem. Now we will have HTML5 problem(including internal HTML5 problems see: fight W3C vs WHATWG). In any case, can developers by new hardware for forum users? Because existing one in not enough for browsers which support all new standards.

Subsilver2 is made in such way that AJAX is too hard to implement. By the way you write this, you show us that you don't know what AJAX is. You should study that more before stating a comment like that.

No. AJAX implemented in such way so it is not portable among styles. I do not reject evolution(i.e. adapt ss2), but I reject pointless destruction(throw out ss2). I know what is Asynchronous JavaScript And XML. I use it on subsilver2 style first places. It saves for me up to 94% of traffic. I also know what is coding patterns and what is coding habit. I can change them both later or sooner. I can turn off PC, get a sheet of paper and a pencil, invite mates, co-workers, friends and do brain attack. Did somebody did that for AJAX+different templates? I don't know, I did not saw any reports but I see "we get rid of it because we have not time for it" - worth reason I know.

[Arty]

"Tables for holding data". Forum messages is data. Any doubts? So each message is row of table(by accident the same we can say for store back-end - SQL-like databases) Each row contains columns which hold value: poster name, message text/date, etc. Message can be decorated by div's INSIDE table cell but not instead. I can continue but have doubts somebody wants it.

That's one way of viewing it. If you still live in last decade and think IE6 is a major browser that has to be supported, that is a valid point of view.

If you display forums that as table, columns on their own don't make any sense. First column is image, second is forum/topic name, then additional data. Without second column, all other columns become meaningless. Without other columns, second column still makes sense. Therefore second column has to be emphasized. Readers need to know that second column is all that matters. How can you do that with table? You can't.

Then there is problem of layout. Table is a table, there isn't much customisation to be done. It even ignores width if content is too wide. Styling it is next to impossible. And what if user is viewing it on device with small width? That situation is rather common these days, not because of ancient computers, but because of phones and tablets.


Forums or topics can also be considered to be lists. Considering that there is hierarchy, lists make more sense.

• Category
  • Forum 1
  • Forum 2
    • Subforum

Now put that into a table that would make any sense.

Each list item can be treated multiple ways. In prosilver it is treated as definition list. There is a main item - forum name or topic title, there is additional data defined by main item.

Apply some basic styling to it and you'll get your shiny table. Apply more advanced styling to it and you can have new layout that isn't possible with a table. Remove all styling from it and content would make sense.

Actually I do not want HTML3.2/4/5, I prefer XHTML.

Nothing stop you from using XHTML syntax in HTML 5 documents.

We already have IE6 problem.

There is no IE6 problem. Please stop living in past. There is a tiny IE7 problem that will be irrelevant by time phpBB 3.1 is released. Then there is a major IE8 problem, but that has nothing to do with tables. Then there is a colossal Microsoft problem, the only company that releases browsers that don't update themselves, forcing designers to support 5-10 years old browsers.

You have the same problem than others who want to keep subsilver2 - you want to hold on to the past and are afraid of moving forward.

[brunoais]

With that said, I won't post in this topic anymore except if there's a really good reason to do it.

@FeyFre
You are against removing ss2. I'd like to get rid of it now.
But I comprehend the people who want subsilver2 and don't want to get rid of it in now so I'll not insist on the topic.

I agree with arty's (previous post) post. The markup should be something that represents correctly the information it shows. In this case, this is not a tabular information, this is a list of forums with their information.
If you want to live in the past, I don't prevent you to do so, but leave us alone in the present.

[Pony99CA]

Forums or topics can also be considered to be lists. Considering that there is hierarchy, lists make more sense.

• Category
  • Forum 1
  • Forum 2
    • Subforum

Now put that into a table that would make any sense.

I'm not going to defend doing page layout with tables, but do you think that task is hard? Each category is a table (with a THEAD for the category name) and each forum is a row in that table.

Code: Select all

<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Category</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>Forum 1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Forum 2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The only possible difficulty is representing sub-forums, but with appropriate styling of the rows, it could be done.

Apply some basic styling to it and you'll get your shiny table. Apply more advanced styling to it and you can have new layout that isn't possible with a table. Remove all styling from it and content would make sense.

That's one of the big arguments for non-tabled styling -- you have more flexibility. (The other two are that table-happy layout can be brittle and that the TABLE tag was really intended for presenting tabular data, not for page layout.)

We already have IE6 problem.

There is no IE6 problem. Please stop living in past. There is a tiny IE7 problem that will be irrelevant by time phpBB 3.1 is released. Then there is a major IE8 problem, but that has nothing to do with tables. Then there is a colossal Microsoft problem, the only company that releases browsers that don't update themselves, forcing designers to support 5-10 years old browsers.

First, what IE 8 problem? (I'm not doubting you; I'm curious.)

Second, it's a bit unfair to say that Microsoft releases browsers that don't update themselves. They take a more holistic approach and update the browser as part of their OS updating facility, not independently. That's similar to how they update Word, Excel and other pieces, too. It's a philosophical difference, but a perfectly valid way of looking at things given that most IE users are Windows users. (I don't know how the Mac version of IE got updated, but that's a dead browser as far as I know.)

To some degree, I wish that Microsoft would provide a framework for third-party software updates, like they do for uninstallation. Instead of each application prompting me to update it when I start that application (or shippping a constantly running update checker), if Microsoft provided hooks to check installed programs for updates, maybe Windows Update could handle updating most third-party software. (Google may do something similar with the Android Play software updating facility.)

You can certainly blame MIcrosoft for the speed at which they release major new versions of IE, but attacking their update strategy seems wrong. Even if IE could update itself, that wouldn't matter much if MIcrosoft only provided bug fixes until the next major release.

Finally, I wouldn't say that Firefox updates itself (at least not in the sense that Google Chrome does). Firefox asks me if I want to update it, but I'm not forced to. I'm glad for that, because one of the extensions that I use (Norton toolbar) wasn't updated for Firefox 12 or 13, so I kept using Firefox 11 until it got updated.

You can say that's Symantec's fault (and it is), but I use the Identity Safe feature of Norton toolbar for most of my Web logins and password management, so I made the decision not to update Firefox until Norton got their extension working. I even wrote them to complain about their slowness -- and a few weeks later, I think, an extension was released for Firefox 14, so I updated. Symantec has been better about updates since then.

Anyway, this is digressing quite a bit from the topic, so I'll stop now.

Steve

[KnocksX]

Microsoft browsers do self-update since IE9.

[Pony99CA]

The markup should be something that represents correctly the information it shows. In this case, this is not a tabular information, this is a list of forums with their information.

Semantically, phpBB presents the Board Index, the Forum View, the Topic View, search results and the Member List as tables. They may not be marked up as tables, but they act like tables:

• They have columns -- for the Board Index, forum names, TOPICS, POSTS and LAST POST; for topic lists, topic names, REPLIES, VIEWS and LAST POST.
• They have rows -- the header and one row for each forum or topic.
• The columns shrink or expand as your browser window shrinks or widens (just like with table columns based on percentages or "*").
• The table truncates when you reach a certain width (probably a CSS min-width, but that's irreleveant) -- the columns don't wrap to new lines like many DIV-based layouts would.

So saying that forum data is not tabular rings hollow.

What non-tabular markup buys you is the ability for styles to represent those items in other ways (as long as the PHP code and template engine support it, of course). That's the flexibility that I mentioned above.

However, how the forum and topic data is displayed is a decision for the style author. What TABLE markup should not be used for is page layout and positioning of non-tabular data.

Steve