Ralph Williams, Jr wrote:
As Cuong Dang pointed out in the session, "Bridging the Gap Between Module Developers and DotNetNuke Designers" at the 2009 Day Of DotNetNuke, a simple, consistent naming pattern needs to be used. All of that to say, I like the idea of being able to turn off the injection of spans and classes.
Ralph, this is kinda where I wanted the discussion to go... Our team has been using DNN since the 3.6's (a long time in versioning years - like dog years) and as DNN gets closer and closer to becoming an accessible, CSS-driven, jQuery-handling, XHTML compliant framework we find ourselves struggling more and more to untangle this web of legacy cr*p. That said, your point on a consistent naming pattern is totally valid. If module developers are to continue developing for DNN, they need to do so to DNN's specification (from a naming stand-point).
So for example: If your developed module is called "My Module", then wrap the module in a containing div with a class (not id as it may appear more than once) of ".mymodule". Then all your CSS selectors in your module.css get this targeting, like so: ".mymodule .a" or ".mymodule div.wrapper", etc, etc. I.E. use simple tags to style your modules and - if at all possible - make them totally templatable like Ventrian does.
@Adam Kirkbride - I would second your motion here. Of late, I've actually been minifying my CSS and JS files just like you mention (it does become tricky though making sure you minify and save your edits).
@Rick Beddie - No worries. I sometimes just find people jumping the gun with comments - appreciate the fact that you consider this a learning environment for all.
@Armand Datema - As much as I champion DNN, I have to agree with you on this. I have made several references to the "unsexiness" DNN in the past, couped with my concerns of it having to compete with other frameworks. DNN is already fighting against the resentment most developers (and the public) have with Microsoft... Don't make it worse by having this all-inclusive, all-things-to-all monkeys mark-up that loses pitches and drives people further away... That said, it is slowly but surely getting there... My skin submission was an attempt to showcase that - as was yours... (*another story though*)
Also, Armand, I'd personally like to see your skinobject, please. (p.s. sent you a mail yesterday, never got response...).
@Timo - Thanks for sharing the hint (see below question). Also, I would second your motion for backwards compatability and version, so long as it doesn't add to the shear weight of DNN... I also fully support your idea of skinobject modes... Good idea.
Also, Timo, RE: Hint: Are you suggesting this is done in Title.ascx? Or in the skinobject call in the .ascx container, like so: <h1><dnn:TITLE runat="server" id="dnnTITLE" CssClass="this" /></h1> ? Obviously the latter works, but was just wondering what you meant..?
@Everyone - Please keep adding to the ideas. Share frustrations, but keep it positive if possible. We're looking for input and solutions.
Thanks
Jon