Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

Bloke · 2018-04-12 16:39:20

etc wrote #310936:

Not sure why we need to append .txp extension, though.

Perhaps we should only append the .txp extension if the name doesn’t already have one? That would depend if the system ignores other files. I think the regex does that.

etc · 2018-04-12 16:40:56

colak wrote #310934:

You did say something here which could actually make sense for future txp versions.

This future could be very near, in fact. Few hours of coding… :-)

etc · 2018-04-12 16:45:16

Bloke wrote #310938:

Perhaps we should only append the .txp extension if the name doesn’t already have one? That would depend if the system ignores other files. I think the regex does that.

If we are going to squat Styles pane (renamed to Assets?), we can leave forms as is, I guess.

Bloke · 2018-04-12 16:50:13

etc wrote #310939:

This future could be very near, in fact. Few hours of coding… :-)

Tease :-)

^{do it: you know you want to! that’s what branches are for}

etc wrote #310940:

If we are going to squat Styles pane (renamed to Assets?), we can leave forms as is, I guess.

True dat.

EDIT: We’ve referred to Forms, Styles and Pages collectively as Assets in the documentation (only because that’s what they’re called in the code and I copied it). So we’d need to tweak the docs a tad, nothing major.

etc · 2018-04-12 17:21:11

etc wrote #310939:

Few hours of coding… :-)

does not mean by me! Stef, if you know what to change to avoid the auto .css extension, please do. I can tweak <txp:css /> meanwhile, and we are all set.

Bloke · 2018-04-12 17:42:11

etc wrote #310943:

does not mean by me! Stef, if you know what to change to avoid the auto .css extension, please do.

I’ll look at it tonight.

colak · 2018-04-12 18:40:06

Bloke wrote #310942:

EDIT: We’ve referred to Forms, Styles and Pages collectively as Assets in the documentation (only because that’s what they’re called in the code and I copied it). So we’d need to tweak the docs a tad, nothing major.

What about if it is renamed to Types? It will in the foreseeable future deal with discrete, text mime types, right?

Edit> Yet again json is left out there with its application/json mime type.

Last edited by colak (2018-04-12 18:42:30)

etc · 2018-04-12 19:10:42

If it helps, here is a (not exhaustive) list of possible mimetypes we could support:

[
        'txt'  => 'text/plain',
        'csv'  => 'text/csv',
        'htm'  => 'text/html',
        'html' => 'text/html',
        'css'  => 'text/css',
        'js'   => 'application/javascript',
        'json' => 'application/json',
        'xml'  => 'application/xml',
        // Images
        'svg'  => 'image/svg+xml'
]

Edit: drastically shortened, please complain if something is missing.

colak · 2018-04-12 19:21:13

etc wrote #310949:

If it helps, here is a (not exhaustive) list of possible mimetypes we could support:

whoa! That’s much more than I expected!!!

etc · 2018-04-12 19:35:08

colak wrote #310951:

whoa! That’s much more than I expected!!!

Well, there is probably no reason to store non-editable types in the db, so the list is likely to be shorten. Now a million dollars question: could some of txp users have named his styles with .js, .xml or some other extension? If we enable auto-guessing, this could be a problem.

jakob · 2018-04-12 19:38:08

wow, way to go you two. I think the name “assets” covers a lot of the cases.

Bloke · 2018-04-12 19:57:49

etc wrote #310954:

Well, there is probably no reason to store non-editable types in the db, so the list is likely to be shorten.

Yeah, I’d challenge anyone to edit a .zip or .exe file in the Styles panel!

could some of txp users have named his styles with .js, .xml or some other extension?

Tough. If you rename a file extension in a desktop OS, you lose the ‘shortcut’ ability to double click it and launch the associated app. Or it loads the wrong app.

In Txp, let’s use the same approach: if you use a crappy extension for your stylesheet, you lose the ability to use the native <txp:css /> tag for that asset. If it was done on purpose, you could still use the new tag to output it by overriding the guessed mimetype.

EDIT: the only thing I would say is that if you don’t specify a file extension, should we fall back on assuming .css? In my Stylesheet names I rarely use a name with an extension. Or does this issue only affect file-based assets?

Last edited by Bloke (2018-04-12 19:59:47)

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#37 2018-04-12 16:39:20

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

etc wrote #310936:

#38 2018-04-12 16:40:56

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

colak wrote #310934:

#39 2018-04-12 16:45:16

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

Bloke wrote #310938:

#40 2018-04-12 16:50:13

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

etc wrote #310939:

etc wrote #310940:

#41 2018-04-12 17:21:11

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

etc wrote #310939:

#42 2018-04-12 17:42:11

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

etc wrote #310943:

#43 2018-04-12 18:40:06

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

Bloke wrote #310942:

#44 2018-04-12 19:10:42

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

#45 2018-04-12 19:21:13

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

etc wrote #310949:

#46 2018-04-12 19:35:08

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

colak wrote #310951:

#47 2018-04-12 19:38:08

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

#48 2018-04-12 19:57:49

Re: Testers needed: flat development (4.7+ only)

etc wrote #310954:

Board footer