[WIP] SMF Rewrite

[Orstio]

What you'll want to do is write your modifications into a "mod package".

More info here:  http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=20319.0

[Alex Stanford]

What you'll want to do is write your modifications into a "mod package".

More info here:  http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=20319.0

If I can get JBlaze to stop harrassing me long enough, I'll have a look at that.  It was one thing to debate the copyright issue, but now he's nitpicking my account in search of alternative reasons to rid me.

Please have a look here for me if you don't mind: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353835.msg2404123#new

Thanks.

[Joshua Dickerson]

Feel free to make posts about the bugs that you find. That would probably wind up helping more people than another theme. Do realize I understand there are loads of locations that inline styles and script are used when they shouldn't be. Making a post about them would help us out. Making a diff would probably help even more.

[Alex Stanford]

Feel free to make posts about the bugs that you find. That would probably wind up helping more people than another theme. Do realize I understand there are loads of locations that inline styles and script are used when they shouldn't be. Making a post about them would help us out. Making a diff would probably help even more.

groundup,

Well, I could certaintly write a more semantic, JavaScript-free, lightweight version of SMF's front-end which would be just-as if not more effective - but I don't know that in doing so I would keep all of the features in which I feel are unnecessary - or keep the same design/structure on everything.  Most things would match quite closely.

But, I do like the idea of contributing code that actually gets included into the core of the software.  So, I might do some rewrite of the actual code that creates close to visually identical results to suggest to SMF as alternatives.

Thanks for the wonderful reply!

On question - when you say:

Making a diff would probably help even more.

What exactly do you mean by "making a diff?"  What is "a diff," exactly?

[Joshua Dickerson]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Diff

In computing, diff is a file comparison utility that outputs the differences between two files. It is typically used to show the changes between a ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff

Use a diff program like Winmerge (I think that would work) to compare two files and create a diff file.

[Alex Stanford]

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Diff

In computing, diff is a file comparison utility that outputs the differences between two files. It is typically used to show the changes between a ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff

Use a diff program like Winmerge (I think that would work) to compare two files and create a diff file.

Okay,

So, you're saying that it would be more helpful if I contributed "diff files" that showed how I would improve the markup of SMF?

While I think I will - can I really expect this to produce the all-out, completely redone markup results I'm looking for?  Likely not.  Furthermore, I'm still going to need assistance learning my way around the app if I am to rewrite the markup in it.

By the way, I'm highly offended by the supportive reference to alcohol in your avatar.  If you could remove it, I'd really appreciate it.      

Haha.  In fact, I truly don't drink unlike my other habits...

[Alex Stanford]

Feel free to make posts about the bugs that you find. That would probably wind up helping more people than another theme. Do realize I understand there are loads of locations that inline styles and script are used when they shouldn't be. Making a post about them would help us out. Making a diff would probably help even more.

Are you suggesting I use this format: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=193486.0 to post all the places I feel the markup could be "bettered?"

[Joshua Dickerson]

Just make a list. I'm not even saying that the changes will be made, but the developers will find it easier to implement if it is in diff format.

PS: beer is legal in the US

[青山 素子]

Well, you could post individual bugs, but a lot depends on the exact parts you are editing. For general optimizing, you could break it up by task (removing all border attributes, etc) or template.


A unified diff is a special text format that shows the before and after of your changes. It's really helpful to coders in showing the changes in an explicit manner. There are tools like WinMerge (Windows), Meld (GTK+/Linux), or even diff (*NIX, OS X, Win32) that can create these files.

This is an example of a unified diff:

Code Select Expand


Index: configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf
===================================================================
--- configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (revision 2362)
+++ configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (working copy)
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
TimeoutIdle                1200

DisplayLogin               welcome.msg
-DisplayFirstChdir          message

ListOptions                "-l"
#LsDefaultOptions           "-l"


In the above, the diff indicates that a line should be removed.


For distribution, an SMF modification XML package is the best way to handle things. It allows application through our package manager, which makes the changes really easy to install.


As for the copyright line, changing the generated code is against the license the software is offered under, so I highly discourage you from doing such. It's actually a bit unoptimized on purpose. The inline styles are there specifically to prevent easy hiding of the line (inline has a higher priority). Likewise, there is a bit of extra stuff to allow a fully XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype to validate if you set the right variable in the template (it switches off the deprecated target attribute and uses JS to open a new window/tab).

[Alex Stanford]

PS: beer is legal in the US

So is marijuana in many parts, and so is marijuana apparel in all parts. 

Well, you could post individual bugs, but a lot depends on the exact parts you are editing. For general optimizing, you could break it up by task (removing all border attributes, etc) or template.


A unified diff is a special text format that shows the before and after of your changes. It's really helpful to coders in showing the changes in an explicit manner. There are tools like WinMerge (Windows), Meld (GTK+/Linux), or even diff (*NIX, OS X, Win32) that can create these files.

This is an example of a unified diff:

Code Select Expand


Index: configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf
===================================================================
--- configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (revision 2362)
+++ configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (working copy)
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
TimeoutIdle                1200

DisplayLogin               welcome.msg
-DisplayFirstChdir          message

ListOptions                "-l"
#LsDefaultOptions           "-l"


In the above, the diff indicates that a line should be removed.


For distribution, an SMF modification XML package is the best way to handle things. It allows application through our package manager, which makes the changes really easy to install.

What exactly is a "SMF modification XML package?"  Can you provide me with some more detailed information on this?

As for the copyright line, changing the generated code is against the license the software is offered under, so I highly discourage you from doing such. It's actually a bit unoptimized on purpose. The inline styles are there specifically to prevent easy hiding of the line (inline has a higher priority). Likewise, there is a bit of extra stuff to allow a fully XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype to validate if you set the right variable in the template (it switches off the deprecated target attribute and uses JS to open a new window/tab).

This makes no sense to me.  For one, why does it matter if the styles are inline?  Granted they hold a higher priority, but really, if someone wants to edit that copyright - inline styles will not stop them.  They can easily track down the source of the generated code, or manipulate it how they please using something like str_replace - no?  Furthermore, in the day of wheel-clicking, modern-browser-riding internet cowboys like today, what good do you actually think you are doing by creating useless markup, and fixes for the useless markup, and alternative scripting solutions to the useless markup - all wasting bandwidth - all for what?  In an attempt to make a page open in a new window, which has become a pipe dream in the first place?  Geez.  I really, really would reconsider this methodology.  But, maybe I'm wrong, if so, please explain it to me.

If I didn't think I'd ruin any chance at being helped on this forum - I'd be inclined to tear that copyright apart despite your inline CSS security scheme, and recode it to my optimization standards.  I'm refraining from doing so, and instead suggesting such a change to SMF's staff - but let's face it, inline CSS isn't the answer to copyright issues, and trying to open a page in a new window is a pipe dream.

I mean, this is the problem I have with the markup in the first place.  This is why this modification even came about.  Now, you guys have a great forum engine here, but we need some serious help in the front-end department.

[青山 素子]

First, I must ask you to please try to not be so hostile in your posts. I'm simply trying to explain a few things to you, but the way your post reads, especially near the end, is very hostile.

What is exactly is a "SMF modification XML package?"  Can you provide me with some more detailed information on this?

There is information linked over at Important Customization Information in this very board.

In short, it's an archive (in zip or tar.gz format) containing a series of XML files that provide SMF with self-editing instructions.

This makes no sense to me.  For one, why does it matter if the styles are inline?  Granted they hold a higher priority, but really, if someone wants to edit that copyright - inline styles will not stop them.  They can easily track down the source of the generated code, or manipulate it how they please using something like str_replace - no?

Sure, but think of it like a Club (the car kind). Those determined to hide the copyright can do so no matter what we do (short of encoding our entire app with IonCube or ZendGuard, but that would be silly). This simply takes a very easy way away, cutting down the pool of those who might otherwise remove it. (Kinda sad since our only restriction on use is that it has to be displayed.)

Furthermore, in the day of wheel-clicking, modern-browser-riding internet cowboys like today, what good do you actually think you are doing by creating useless markup, and fixes for the useless markup, and alternative scripting solutions to the useless markup - all wasting bandwidth - all for what?  In an attempt to make a window open in a browser, which has become a pipe dream in the first place?  Geez.  I really, really would reconsider this methodology.  But, maybe I'm wrong, if so, please explain to me.

Yeah, it's a bit silly of an issue. This thing came up because several people in the community complained that they wanted the possibility of strict-validating themes where the target attribute is not allowed. During team discussions, a few people advocated for just dropping the attribute entirely, others wanted to preserve behavior. A compromise was reached where both sides could be satisfied for this release. We may revisit this in one of our future releases, although with HTML5 replacing XHTML in standards in the near future, this might become a moot issue.

Keep in mind this behavior doesn't just affect links in the footer, it also affects the behavior of the url bbcode which opens in a new window/tab (there is the iurl bbcode where there is no target information).

[Alex Stanford]

First, I must ask you to please try to not be so hostile in your posts. I'm simply trying to explain a few things to you, but the way your post reads, especially near the end, is very hostile.

I don't know how I'm coming off as "hostile."  I've posted in the same manner and tone on other forums for years on end and never had an issue.

What is exactly is a "SMF modification XML package?"  Can you provide me with some more detailed information on this?

There is information linked over at Important Customization Information in this very board.

In short, it's an archive (in zip or tar.gz format) containing a series of XML files that provide SMF with self-editing instructions.

Thanks.

This makes no sense to me.  For one, why does it matter if the styles are inline?  Granted they hold a higher priority, but really, if someone wants to edit that copyright - inline styles will not stop them.  They can easily track down the source of the generated code, or manipulate it how they please using something like str_replace - no?

Sure, but think of it like a Club (the car kind). Those determined to hide the copyright can do so no matter what we do (short of encoding our entire app with IonCube or ZendGuard, but that would be silly). This simply takes a very easy way away, cutting down the pool of those who might otherwise remove it. (Kinda sad since our only restriction on use is that it has to be displayed.)

I understand the intent, I just think it's overly-proactive and unneccessary, but I do understand that it could cut the potential pool of idiots who are capable of removing the copyright.

Furthermore, in the day of wheel-clicking, modern-browser-riding internet cowboys like today, what good do you actually think you are doing by creating useless markup, and fixes for the useless markup, and alternative scripting solutions to the useless markup - all wasting bandwidth - all for what?  In an attempt to make a window open in a browser, which has become a pipe dream in the first place?  Geez.  I really, really would reconsider this methodology.  But, maybe I'm wrong, if so, please explain to me.

Yeah, it's a bit silly of an issue. This thing came up because several people in the community complained that they wanted the possibility of strict-validating themes where the target attribute is not allowed. During team discussions, a few people advocated for just dropping the attribute entirely, others wanted to preserve behavior. A compromise was reached where both sides could be satisfied for this release. We may revisit this in one of our future releases, although with HTML5 replacing XHTML in standards in the near future, this might become a moot issue.

Keep in mind this behavior doesn't just affect links in the footer, it also affects the behavior of the url bbcode which opens in a new window/tab (there is the iurl bbcode where there is no target information).

I think this was the wrong decision, and I'm with those who were for removing this altogether.  How a user wants to open a window has become an option of the user, not the developer.

[DavidCT]

I think it is you who is touchy.  It does sound like you intended to revamp SMF and redistribute it simular to how Linux is done.  If that isn't your intent - fine, but that isn't how your post sounded to me, and apparently, others as well.  Like I said, I don't care, it's none of my business, I just was curious as to why you were making such a fuss if all you were doing is writing mods.

[Alex Stanford]

I think it is you who is touchy.  It does sound like you intended to revamp SMF and redistribute it simular to how Linux is done.  If that isn't your intent - fine, but that isn't how your post sounded to me, and apparently, others as well.  Like I said, I don't care, it's none of my business, I just was curious as to why you were making such a fuss if all you were doing is writing mods.

You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension.  Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.

I'm making a fuss because I spend more time debating the legitimacy of my efforts than I do contributing to them with this community.  For this reason, I'm going to ignore posts like yours from the point forward - I've already corrected them far too many times.  This entire idea is becoming a waste of my time.  You guys are total copyright nazi's, and if you continue to accuse the innocent of copyright infringement, you are going to run everyone off.

[JBlaze]

OK, let me spit this out in English to see if I got it right.

1. You want to modify SMF to fit your needs.
2. You want to distribute the means to modify SMF the way you want
3. You want to do this the best way possible and legally.



1. This is fine. Mod authors do this everyday.
2. This is fine as well. Mod authors do this using the mod package style explained above.
3. Just follow the SMF Coding Guidelines as well as other posts as needed. Basically, don't touch the copyright and don't distribute SMF Files.

[青山 素子]

I don't know how I'm coming off as "hostile."  I've posted in the same manner and tone on other forums for years on end and never had an issue.

Well, to be direct, it's the "this is completely wrong and you're stupid for doing it this way" I'm reading into your posts. Maybe it's being colored by the arguing you are doing in other posts as well, but I'm just seeing it as hostile.

I think this was the wrong decision, and I'm with those who were for removing this altogether.  How a user wants to open a window has become an option of the user, not the developer.

Now, see, this is an example. You don't even acknowledge that you understand the reasoning, bunt just go right into how it's the wrong decision. That's just, perhaps, a bit angry to us.

You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension.  Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.

Now, see, this is hostile. I don't see any way that could not be. Please do try and be nicer to our community members.

I'm making a fuss because I spend more time debating the legitimacy of my efforts than I do contributing to them with this community.

The way this topic started out certainly was a bit misleading on what your intentions were, and unfortunately, your responses served to elevate the problem rather than bring it back to a discussion on technical issues.

You guys are total copyright nazi's, and if you continue to accuse the innocent of copyright infringement, you are going to run everyone off.

Aside from raising the flag of Godwin's law, I would like to note that DavidCT is just a community member, like you.

As for the copyright thing, we are proud of our work and like to make sure that those using the software know it's our code powering their favorite discussion forum. We take effort to prevent simple removal methods of our copyright (detecting HTML comments, making it difficult to hide via CSS, etc.). While it does make the code a bit bulkier and perhaps less svelte, it also keeps a lot of people who might otherwise remove it from doing so. This saves us time as we don't have to actively enforce our license terms as much and can focus on building this software.

[JBlaze]

Copyright Nazis, eh? I kinda like the sound of that. Might make a nice band name

[Alex Stanford]

OK, let me spit this out in English to see if I got it right.

1. You want to modify SMF to fit your needs.
2. You want to distribute the means to modify SMF the way you want
3. You want to do this the best way possible and legally.



1. This is fine. Mod authors do this everyday.
2. This is fine as well. Mod authors do this using the mod package style explained above.
3. Just follow the SMF Coding Guidelines as well as other posts as needed. Basically, don't touch the copyright and don't distribute SMF Files.

1. Correct.
2. Correct.  (Don't really care, but if it helps someone and teaches me something - sure!)
3. Correct.

Considering you were the butt of my "hostility" - it's quite impressive that you were the first to grasp my intentions!  I appreciate you actually taking the time to understand what I'm trying to do here, JBlaze.

I don't know how I'm coming off as "hostile."  I've posted in the same manner and tone on other forums for years on end and never had an issue.

Well, to be direct, it's the "this is completely wrong and you're stupid for doing it this way" I'm reading into your posts. Maybe it's being colored by the arguing you are doing in other posts as well, but I'm just seeing it as hostile.

Well, I may have acted in a hostile in response to some the people reading bad intentions into my thread - but I was not at all trying to come off as hostile the post you were responding to when you first mentioned my "hositility."

I think this was the wrong decision, and I'm with those who were for removing this altogether.  How a user wants to open a window has become an option of the user, not the developer.

Now, see, this is an example. You don't even acknowledge that you understand the reasoning, bunt just go right into how it's the wrong decision. That's just, perhaps, a bit angry to us.

I may have neglected to acknowledge my understanding of the intent here, but it was not due to anger or hostility.  I simply was just trying to state that my opinion on the issue most cloesly aligns with that of those who were for removing the attribute.  Now, I'm not going to sit here and say I'm for something I'm not, but I suppose I could have included some acknowledgement of my understanding.

You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension.  Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.

Now, see, this is hostile. I don't see any way that could not be. Please do try and be nicer to our community members.

That was a much more hostile post, yes.  But, you see, it was posted in response to yet another annoying post that does me, you, or anyone else no good at all.  I'm tired of answering these useless misrepresentations of my intent.  So, excuse me if I mix a little sarcasm or hostility with regards to such wastes of time.

I'm making a fuss because I spend more time debating the legitimacy of my efforts than I do contributing to them with this community.

The way this topic started out certainly was a bit misleading on what your intentions were, and unfortunately, your responses served to elevate the problem rather than bring it back to a discussion on technical issues.

It may not have explicitly defined my intent from the get-go - but the community decided to assume the worst - this is what annoys me.  Furthermore, I'm still dealing with posts regarding it long after I've cleared it up.

You guys are total copyright nazi's, and if you continue to accuse the innocent of copyright infringement, you are going to run everyone off.

Aside from raising the flag of Godwin's law, I would like to note that DavidCT is just a community member, like you.

Regardless of his forum position, my response remains the same.  I might be in the same permission group, but I'm certainly not a copyright nazi! 

As for the copyright thing, we are proud of our work and like to make sure that those using the software know it's our code powering their favorite discussion forum. We take effort to prevent simple removal methods of our copyright (detecting HTML comments, making it difficult to hide via CSS, etc.). While it does make the code a bit bulkier and perhaps less svelte, it also keeps a lot of people who might otherwise remove it from doing so. This saves us time as we don't have to actively enforce our license terms as much and can focus on building this software.

I completely understand this, and have for many posts now.  I'd really like to move past this issue and continue progress, or quit.  It seems everytime I try to move on, I get interrupted with this again.

[Alex Stanford]

Copyright Nazis, eh? I kinda like the sound of that. Might make a nice band name

LMAO

[DavidCT]

You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension.  Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.

Seriously?  What is the TOPIC NAME?

SMF Rewrite

So don't give me this crap it wasn't your intent.  It's not named SMF SuperMod, SMF Curve Deluxe, and if it was for personal use only - why post anything about it here?  And, it is you with the attitude.  All I said in my first post was that I was curious of your intent - I didn't acuse you of anything.  I really don't want to continue a flame war, it's not my software.  Sorry to imply anything.  Good luck with your "SuperMod" or whatever.

To SMF Team: Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved.