Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index

On 06/24/2011 11:46 AM, drew wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:34 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
Hi Drew, *,

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:26 PM, drew<>  wrote:
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 17:04 +0200, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 4:37 PM, webmaster for Kracked Press
Productions<>  wrote:

I found the part of the CSS that causes the right side of the page to  be
  Why this "hidden"option is needed.
a) You *must not* use<div id="Layout">  in your html, there is already
one div with that ID as part of the default layout, and you cannot
have two elements with the same ID in html, this is not valid. Same
for the other divs you did duplicate (BgContainer, Container, the
b) And you have an additional div class="typography", this again is
autogenerated, and is set to the full width of the page. When you have
additional elements on the left, then it doesn't fit anymore.

So the problem is you're "misusing" predefined/special css styles and
have hard formatting in your html.
Well, when the original HTML files where made they weren't in the CMS
system so there was no misuse of anything, per so.
Well, let me be more clear: what is stored in the CMS is not the
complete body, as this would make it impossible to create the
navigation dynamic, to have a common header, footer, etc.
What is stored in the CMS is the "real" content only. But what was
added in your sample was the complete body, duplicateing the header
and whatnot.
thanks for explaining that.

It's pretty clear from the structure, that a page that was created by
the CMS was taken as a "template", but you just did copy too much.
Absolutely right, that became very clear when I started looking at this.

For the default page type, only what is wihin the<div
class="typography">  is part of the CMS (minus the header (<h2>)that is
also taken from the page automatically)
@Tim - I know the page that came back after the fix the other day looks
like hell - but no one is going to leave it like that. I maybe should of
put a nice looking landing page there, but I figured it was just Ugly
for a few days and better to get the files we need to like to moved and
rearranged first.

I have no problem with ugly with the move to better and then to lovely.

What I really was concerned about was that hiding of the right hand side of the text - so the thread was started.

I also wondered about some other items that might crop up.

Why the vertical navigation instead of the horizontal second or third ones like both site and the wiki site.

The vertical navigation tends to remove needed screen space, as I see it. I never liked them much. Now that we have about 600px width for space, we need to guard as much of it is possible.

Actually, for the installs, I added thought adding German might be good, since that is the last language not listed that the US schools teach in my area.

Right now the installs on the CMS site shows 3.3.2 and not 3.3.3, so that may need to changed.


Also I was wondering how the "system" would compensate for all the shared folders and links so the files will be properly located on the ISO of the DVD? The only one I have seen so far is from Brazil and it looks like they did very little that was similar to what the NA DVD will need.

Maybe someone could PM me about how that will work, or point me to the documentation already available.

As for the extensions and such that is not currently on our DVD and currently resides in my "private" extension folders; I was wondering if anyone who is currently working on a CMS site would want these file uploaded to a shared folder so everyone could use them. I still thing LibreOffice need to have their own "large" extension and template site. The dictionaries now on the NA testing site are many, many, more than listed in the current LO/LO-Planet extension listing. The same with the templates I have in my template folders. LO needs to not have the link for these .oxt files, or archived files, point to a "flaky" OOo server or any server that is totally "pro" OOo over LibreOffice. Why should we promote using OOo's server when the files could be on a shared folder of a LibreOffice server/system.

So do anyone want 100+ .oxt extension [not dictionaries] uploaded to a shared folder, along with the 1000+ template sample files that are not .oxt files? I most likely have a lot of artwork from free sources that could be uploaded as well.

It is up to the groups to say yes or no. If anyone would like a archived file containing the .oxt files, or other stuff, let me know. I would be able to make them available some way, some where, for people to look and see what they are all about. Every extension file that I downloaded from OOo's site has an associated PDF file printed from the download page[s] so people can know what these files are all about.

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.