Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Web Developer Resource Index adds Vanilla

dwcliftondwclifton
edited July 2005 in Vanilla 1.0 Help

I just wanted stop in and say that the Vanilla forum is really a refreshing change from the millions of others out there. I won't name any names. Nice work! Nice enough that I added it to the PHP section of my developer index.

Wow, no tables, semantic XHTML, full, extensible CSS, separated behavior (Javascript)...thumbs up!

One suggestion: preview your post. ~d

Comments

  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    Thanks Douglas! Apparently a preview extension is in the works :)
  • dwcliftondwclifton
    I take you are the developer Mark? From a whois query my guess is yes. If so, would you prefer I link the author attribution of my entry on Vanilla to a bio? For now, I'm linking to the root page of this domain. Also, are there any other examples "in the wild" of people using Vanilla? I'm considering installing a copy, and writing a piece about configuring it to fit the style of the the rest of a site. Mine for instance, which has no chat or interactive quality. I'm also wondering if it's possible to bring the DOCTYPE up to Strict, or even XHTML 1.1. Thanks, ~d
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    dwclifton, see the google link at http://lussumo.com/community/comments.php?DiscussionID=367&page=1#Item_0 for a couple of recent installs of vanilla... am sure that there are a few others as well, in fact i might start a thread and get everyone to post their Vanilla urls there...
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    edited July 2005
    dwclifton: I am the developer, yes. My personal domain is http://markosullivan.ca The strict doctype is a difficult one for me. It's got so many wierd requirements - like no name attributes on forms - which boggled my mind. Making that change a difficult one. I'm sure there are ways around those problems, but I just didn't have the time to figure them out in development. I'm open to the idea, I just need to know what it takes. And I hope you do end up writing that article - I'd love to read it :)
  • domdom
    A strict doctype is highly recommended (in my eyes anyway), and if you want some help working through the changes needed I'd be more than happy to oblige.

    For a starter, names on forms should be unneccessary. The only place that ever used a form name was javascript, and that can access them via an id now.
  • dwcliftondwclifton
    edited July 2005

    Regarding XHTML Strict:

    I felt the same way at first, but I was surprised to find that moving from transitional to strict, and then to 1.1, was really not that difficult. I can give you a hand with it you'd like. The trickiest part is probably the Javascript stuff. document.write() is a big no-no, but I doubt you're using that (I haven't had the chance to look at the code yet). Name attributes are fine, just make sure you also use id with the same value.

    Regarding Vanilla:

    I did a manual install on my site this morning. I suppose I could have used the install script, but I like the low-level stuff. Very easy. I'm impressed Mark. This beats you-know-who, hands down.

    I prefer to keep HTML disabled for posts. Markdown is just fine by me. I noticed right off the bat that you're using Michel's PHP port (also listed on drx). I'd suggest a link to John Gruber's Markdown syntax page for folks that aren't familiar with it.

    So, come on over, sign-up, and post a message on loadaverageZero! ~d

  • dwcliftondwclifton
    edited July 2005
    Ack! That was suppposed to be Markdown. Now you can see why the preview feature would really help! Note: fixed.
  • MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    There is only one place I can think of where I do a document.write, and that is to fool screen scrapers so they can't get member email addresses. If anyone knows of a better way, I'm all ears. Like I said, I'm not opposed to going strict. If it is as easy as you say, I'm all for it ASAP.
  • dwcliftondwclifton
    The transition (if you'll excuse the pun) from HTML to XHTML was the hardest part for me. Getting strict to validate was a little tricky, and from strict to 1.1 was painless. The only thing you have to watch out for is serving 1.1 to browsers (IE) that don't accept the content type application/xhtml+xml, you cannot do that even if you're sending the exact same markup (which is what I do). Are you doing any sort of content negotiation? I really haven't had the time yet to dig into the code. I just sniff for IE and send it text/html + XHTML 1.0 Strict.
This discussion has been closed.