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, ...New to DotNetNuke and CSS SkinningNew to DotNetNuke and CSS Skinning
Previous
 
Next
New Post
4/22/2008 2:35 PM
 

As far as we know the cambrian release should be a bit more xhtml compliant friendly. Some of the main non-compliance pieces have been made to render compliant. In regards to having issues typically not, baring module specific issues. (Always an issue it seems) you can work out most of the errors. Just takes some playing around with.

 

 
New Post
4/28/2008 9:59 AM
 

keeperofstars wrote

As far as we know the cambrian release should be a bit more xhtml compliant friendly.

How  far away is the cambrian release? Does the 4.8.2 release tackle these issues, is it an improvement on xhtml compliance?

keeperofstars wrote
Some of the main non-compliance pieces have been made to render compliant. In regards to having issues typically not, baring module specific issues. (Always an issue it seems) you can work out most of the errors. Just takes some playing around with.

Thats good to hear, are there any links on the net to info about how people have done this with 4.8.0

 

 
New Post
4/28/2008 8:26 PM
 

Dave@DevelopedSolutions wrote

 keeperofstars wrote

As far as we know the cambrian release should be a bit more xhtml compliant friendly.

How  far away is the cambrian release? Does the 4.8.2 release tackle these issues, is it an improvement on xhtml compliance?

 keeperofstars wrote
Some of the main non-compliance pieces have been made to render compliant. In regards to having issues typically not, baring module specific issues. (Always an issue it seems) you can work out most of the errors. Just takes some playing around with.

Thats good to hear, are there any links on the net to info about how people have done this with 4.8.0

 

 

I haven't re-read ths whole thread again, but you know if you make a file called skinname.doctype.xml and put your DTD it in, then you'll render in standards compliance mode....although I doubt it'll check out with W3C, at least firefox wont' say querks, and it'll display more consistantly.

 


Josh Martin

 
New Post
4/29/2008 3:32 PM
 

keeperofstars wrote

I have nearly 100 Pure CSS skins under my belt so far.

Gack!  I have dozens of skins with tables for at least some part, and only two 100% CSS skins.  I'm happy with those two, but they took a lot of dinking around with to meet all the browser requirements and still be reasonably attractive.  I will admit to just being lazy for a number of the skins with tables, and to having to convert existing template designs for some others, but my real problem is I just haven't mastered CSS layout to the point I can meet a vision.  Unfortunately fifteen or so years of tables is hard to unlearn...  :)

Jeff

 
New Post
4/29/2008 4:56 PM
 

Josh, even with the doctype by default nature DNN renders non compliant code. It tends to not close tags that it should, and at times renders a few controls that are not xhtml compliant. You have to tweak around with the files a bit, to get most of the errors out.

Jeff: I agree that CSS is a * self censorship * to get to look correct in all the browsers around. Always some little tweak here or there. However once you get the hang of making those tweaks it becomes easier to build CSS skins then table based ones. One huge benefit of CSS based skinning is the ability to make large scale changes with little changes to the base html. Granted you really need to know CSS and how to accomplish what you want.

Overall though its no different then when we first all started using tables, they were horrid to deal with didnt render the same in any browser (still don't today lol) the only difference is we have been using them for the last 10 some years so we know all the quirks to work out. Same thing will happen with CSS based layouts.

I personally like the ease of CSS based layouts, I can create some really impressive skins with about 10 lines of html and some CSS which would take me about 3 times the amount of code to do with tables.

I do however have a huge pillow I keep at my desk for when I want to slam my head down. No need to kill off brain cells.

Hopefully microsoft will wise up and make a compliance / standards based explorer before I pass away, but I am not holding my breath.

 

 
Previous
 
Next
HomeHomeUsing DNN Platf...Using DNN Platf...Skins, Themes, ...Skins, Themes, ...New to DotNetNuke and CSS SkinningNew to DotNetNuke and CSS Skinning


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