Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

incorrect CSS class genered by ContentPagePresenter #1393

Closed
craigambrose opened this Issue Mar 4, 2012 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
Contributor

craigambrose commented Mar 4, 2012

Yes, this is a bug report against my own code.

For a new Refinery 2.0 application, on the home page. The page displays two

elements. They have the ids "body" and "side_body" respectively. The parent container #body_content has the css classes "no_body_content_left no_body_content_right". The "no_SECTIONNAME" classes are supposed to be present for all sections which are not displayed on this page. The body_content_left and body_content_right sections are supposed to be the same as body and side_body, but there is some confusion over names.

Suggest we stick with "body" and "side_body" in all cases. Thus, "no_body" and "no_side_body" should be the css classes used, but only if those sections are not present.

I'll volunteer to fix this.

Owner

parndt commented Mar 4, 2012

I'd rather the names "body" and "aside"

Should this fix go for 2.1 ?

Owner

parndt commented Mar 4, 2012

cc @ugisozols @robyurkowski @djones @phiggins @simi what would you like for the standard part names?

Contributor

robyurkowski commented Mar 4, 2012

I'm rather torn on the issue. I definitely think we should deprecate body_content_left and body_content_right — those are ascriptive terms, even if it was the position they frequently filled.

I don't love the use of aside like @parndt suggested because there's a reasonable chance of confusion between aside and #aside. I'd rather that section be an HTML aside — but I'm not sure how we can reasonably assume that and/or make that customizable without vastly complicating things.

I don't really like body and side_body for the same reason that it's ascriptive... but I don't have a better option. 👍 for those.

And yeah, I'd say 2.1 is fair game.

Contributor

phiggins commented Mar 4, 2012

I agree with @robyurkowski, I like body and side_body above the other suggestions.

Owner

ugisozols commented Mar 5, 2012

👍 to what @robyurkowski said.

Contributor

keithpitty commented Mar 7, 2012

Having just started a Refinery 2 project, I'll add my 2 cents worth and vote for #body and #side_body.

@phiggins phiggins pushed a commit to phiggins/refinerycms that referenced this issue Mar 28, 2012

@robyurkowski robyurkowski Fixes #1393. 15693ce

@phiggins phiggins pushed a commit to phiggins/refinerycms that referenced this issue Mar 28, 2012

@ugisozols ugisozols Merge pull request #1521 from resolve/fix/1393
Fix #1393
128829c

@bobbus bobbus pushed a commit to bobbus/refinerycms that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2012

@robyurkowski robyurkowski Fix #1393. 4ccebdf

@bobbus bobbus pushed a commit to bobbus/refinerycms that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2012

@ugisozols ugisozols Merge pull request #1520 from resolve/fix/1393-stable
Deprecate body_content_left and body_content_right (Partially fixes #1393)
cebb70b
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment