Hello,
Yes - I see... They sort-of did. It was always part of the plan that we'd internally convert it into a skin - we liked their designs but they didn't have a background with DNN.
Still, I think it hurts the DNN ecosystem when people can't take relatively standard HTML templates and easily convert them into DNN without a bunch of headaches. The move to an ascx file is tough for a lot of people - but I get that as a reality of .Net stuff. But, the CSS just seems like an unnecessary headache. Much of the trouble is that there seem to be a lot of entries for basic HTML elements - not just dnn-specific classes. One I ran into right away was this one:
html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe,h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre,a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code,del, dfn, em, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp,small, strike, strong, ub, sup, tt, var,b, u, i, center,dl, dt, dd, ol, ul, li,fieldset, form, label, legend,caption, article, aside, canvas, details, embed,figure, figcaption, footer, header, hgroup,menu, nav, output, ruby, section, summary,time, mark, audio, video { margin: 0; padding: 0; border: 0; font-size: 100%; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; }
I just don't see any reason why this stuff would be included in a default css file. I'd totally get it if DNN wanted to have a css-reset.css file or something. But if you can't disable it, why is this here? Admittedly, this isn't really my area, but it seems that in a world of great competition for CMS systems and a move to a more agnostic design, that DNN would want to avoid creating extra work for people trying to develop DNN skins and modules.
Mike
|