Search found 494 matches
- Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:49 am
- Forum: [3.x] Rejected RFCs
- Topic: [RFC|Rejected] Do not use sizeof to check for empty arrays a
- Replies: 5
- Views: 13401
Re: [RFC] Do not use sizeof to check for empty arrays and...
What Nils and Andreas said.
- Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:19 pm
- Forum: [3.1/Ascraeus] Merged RFCs
- Topic: [RFC|Merged] Extensions
- Replies: 113
- Views: 283139
Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions
We have this one: https://github.com/naderman/phpbb3-example-ext also check the pull request which adds a lot of stuff.
- Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:36 pm
- Forum: [3.x] Discussion
- Topic: Allow all admins to purge cache
- Replies: 4
- Views: 6539
Re: Allow all admins to purge cache
Agree, restricting to founders makes no sense.
- Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:55 am
- Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
- Topic: [RFC] Extensions Meta-Data File
- Replies: 33
- Views: 46164
Re: [RFC] Extensions package description format
People still write official RFCs in text format and it works just fine. It doesn't need to be shiny, it needs to be understandable, readable and editable.
- Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:53 pm
- Forum: [3.x] Rejected RFCs
- Topic: [RFC|Rejected] Template Vars in JS Files
- Replies: 6
- Views: 12947
Re: [RFC] Template Vars in JS Files
This is intentional, adding templates into JS cause a lot of problems.
If we want to do that, we need to compile the JavaScript. Since these variables are not constants, we'd have to compile it on the fly, so basically generate the JS every time. Which is terrible, JS must be static and cacheable ...
If we want to do that, we need to compile the JavaScript. Since these variables are not constants, we'd have to compile it on the fly, so basically generate the JS every time. Which is terrible, JS must be static and cacheable ...
- Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:17 am
- Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
- Topic: [RFC] ACP Search
- Replies: 29
- Views: 37917
Re: [RFC] ACP Search
I recall talking to DavidMJ about this feature at Londonvasion in 2008. Would definitely be very awesome, but I don't see (yet) how it can be done in a reasonable amount of time.
- Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:23 pm
- Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
- Topic: [RFC] Make the use of defer mandatory
- Replies: 62
- Views: 68637
Re: [RFC] Make the use of defer mandatory
Well, perhaps those pages just contain outdated information. According to caniuse.com they are supported: http://caniuse.com/script-defer
- Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:16 am
- Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
- Topic: [RFC] Make the use of defer mandatory
- Replies: 62
- Views: 68637
Re: [RFC] Make the use of defer mandatory
I agree with Arty that implementing both is probably not worth it. Just using defer is very easy to do and works in a wide range of browsers. Only opera does not support it. And while the slowdown for those who don't support it is not so nice, it's not that much of a problem either.
- Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:23 pm
- Forum: [3.x][Archive] RFCs
- Topic: [RFC] Make the use of defer mandatory
- Replies: 62
- Views: 68637
Re: [RFC]Make the use of defer mandatory
Totally missed this topic. After looking into it, this seems like a really good idea. And since it's trivial to implement, we could probably even add it to 3.1. It would make a few things quite a lot easier.
Browser support is pretty good, only opera is not supported. And in cases where it's not ...
Browser support is pretty good, only opera is not supported. And in cases where it's not ...
- Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:57 am
- Forum: [3.1/Ascraeus] Merged RFCs
- Topic: [RFC|Merged] Extensions
- Replies: 113
- Views: 283139
Re: [RFC|Merged] Extensions
Nils should correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this to be the case.