Products

Solutions

Resources

Partners

Community

Blog

About

QA

Ideas Test

New Community Website

Ordinarily, you'd be at the right spot, but we've recently launched a brand new community website... For the community, by the community.

Yay... Take Me to the Community!

Welcome to the DNN Community Forums, your preferred source of online community support for all things related to DNN.
In order to participate you must be a registered DNNizen

HomeHomeUsing DNN Platf...Using DNN Platf...Skins, Themes, ...Skins, Themes, ...Reduce Module Markup, Please Vote Up!Reduce Module Markup, Please Vote Up!
Previous
 
Next
New Post
3/4/2013 9:12 AM
 

Hi all, I'm trying to start a grassroots campaign to reduce the HTML bloat of dnn. Here is the markup of default HTML module:

I'd like to get it closer to this:


Vote here:
http://www.dotnetnuke.com/Community/C...

 
New Post
3/4/2013 9:49 AM
 

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you would find if you look at the markup that there is very little room for the removal of markup.  It is important to understand where the different markup is generated.  Getting rid of some of this HTML would also get rid of features which are used by many devs/designers for achieving their designs.

  • <div class="DnnModule" /> and <a name="xxx /> are generated by the module rendering framework
  • <div class="DNNContainer*"> and <h2><span> are generated by your container
  • <div id=" * ContentPane"> and <div id="* ModuleContent "> are generated by the module framework
  • <div id=" * lblContent" > is generated by the HTML module

Realistically you might be able to get rid of the <div id="* lblContent">, but everything else is needed to support specific DotNetNuke features and are artifacts of the .Net control hierarchy.

 


Joe Brinkman
DNN Corp.
 
New Post
3/4/2013 10:29 AM
 
Joe Brinkman wrote:

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think you would find if you look at the markup that there is very little room for the removal of markup.  It is important to understand where the different markup is generated.  Getting rid of some of this HTML would also get rid of features which are used by many devs/designers for achieving their designs.

  • and <a name="xxx /> are generated by the module rendering framework</li> <li><div class="> and

    are generated by your container

  • <a name="xxx /> are generated by the module rendering framework</li> <li><div class=">
  • and
    are generated by the module framework
  • is generated by the HTML module
<a name="xxx /> are generated by the module rendering framework</li> <li><div class=">

Realistically you might be able to get rid of the

, but everything else is needed to support specific DotNetNuke features and are artifacts of the .Net control hierarchy.

 

 

 

 

I appreciate the input Joe. I challenge the assumption that there is no room for improvement in this regard. I think it's become this way because features have been added over time, or were originally implemented without regard to the markup output. Heck I know. I've been fighting the markup battle with DNN modules for years, whether it be table based output or invalid html. Historically, it's never been a priority.

Instead of declaring we can't change, how about talking about what features are impacted and how can those could be implemented differently. What would it take? (If you noticed in the second example I provided, I combined some of the output, merged classes in the same div etc. )

Compared to other platforms, the output is a joke. If you've ever created a WordPress theme in comparison, you would know what I am talking about. Obviously, this isn't going to be a priority over neat features like "drag n drop", but I really just want to raise the awareness a notch so when new features are added, the bloat can be managed.

I struggle every day with the perception that this is platform written by .net developers, for .net developers.

 
New Post
3/4/2013 10:35 AM
 
Joe,

If some of these would use a placeholder and not a div the HTML could be much cleaner. Problem could be downwards compatibility of the classes in there, but these could be made available to skinners as a tokens or as <%=Module.NameClass%> etc.

Although we are used to it, I do agree a simple "Hello World" example in DNN results in a lot of excess HTML. Especially people new to DNN checking the source of a page  could get the impression DNN is "messy" only because of this unneeded HTML.

 
New Post
3/4/2013 10:40 AM
 
ech01 wrote:

I appreciate the input Joe. I challenge the assumption that there is no room for improvement in this regard. I think it's become this way because features have been added over time, or were originally implemented without regard to the markup output. Heck I know. I've been fighting the markup battle with DNN modules for years, whether it be table based output or invalid html. Historically, it's never been a priority....

I don't agree on that one.
It has never been top priority, but the situation is much better then in the DNN 4 days.
There's still excess html, but at least most of it is valid now.

 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeUsing DNN Platf...Using DNN Platf...Skins, Themes, ...Skins, Themes, ...Reduce Module Markup, Please Vote Up!Reduce Module Markup, Please Vote Up!


These Forums are dedicated to discussion of DNN Platform and Evoq Solutions.

For the benefit of the community and to protect the integrity of the ecosystem, please observe the following posting guidelines:

  1. No Advertising. This includes promotion of commercial and non-commercial products or services which are not directly related to DNN.
  2. No vendor trolling / poaching. If someone posts about a vendor issue, allow the vendor or other customers to respond. Any post that looks like trolling / poaching will be removed.
  3. Discussion or promotion of DNN Platform product releases under a different brand name are strictly prohibited.
  4. No Flaming or Trolling.
  5. No Profanity, Racism, or Prejudice.
  6. Site Moderators have the final word on approving / removing a thread or post or comment.
  7. English language posting only, please.
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out
What is Liquid Content?
Find Out