User talk


From Joomla! Documentation

regarding your deletion request, see my talk page --CirTap (talkcontribs)

Development page[edit]

Hey E-builds, great idea on gathering form fields with parameters on the Developers page. I've been using H4 headings to separate different content on the landing pages in a navigational box like this:


Helps divide them and keeps them small. I'm also glad you were able to figure out the pages, trying to give them a bit of style, easy to find common pages, and easy to update the lists. Eventually, I hope Parameters and Form fields will need its own page, with Tutorials and FAQs like some of the others. You might have noticed Component Development, Module Development and the other 2 in the series of development with a similar look to the main developers page. Another eventually will be the version tagging of articles and the use of DPL to pull the info on lists using DPL calls. I hope all this makes it easier to find information on the wiki for developers. Take care, and thanks!

Tom Hutchison (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2012 (CDT)

Thanks, Tom. And the headings: great! I usually only do what I force through my time on the wiki and often leave things to be done (as indeed my ugly splitting is much better with your headings). Often I am also a bit scared of breaking possible guidelines.. Heh.. Generally I don't have much time and I update the wiki while I am developing a component (people actions) as a sort of thanks to the existing ones. So when I notice something that could have lowered my reading and searching time on the wiki, I try to improve it. But this, again, means that I often leave gaps and "leftovers" for someone else (such as the new article on server side validation is a perfect example (left a lot "TodO's" there)).

(No idea what DPL are and if I will have the time to learn and use them though.)

Thanks for those separate page links. I didn't notice them at all before. (It's a bit inconvenient, I think, to keep both pages up to date, but on the other hand it's probably too much info indeed to put them all on the one developers page. But then again, I've noticed that on the separate pages a lot of things could be simplified. E.g. linking all the 10 parts of multi-page article, I find a bit silly. ) Indeed, forms & parameters might once need their own pages, but well, I guess for now there isn't enough material for that.

Well, enough said already, I just wanted to make clear that once my component is finished you will suddenly not see me editing here anymore and that I am limited in time.

E-motiv (former E-builds) (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2012 (CDT)

Thanks for all you do, every little bit is always helpful! I'm hopeful you'll still edit when you have the time, DOC team always is very appreciative for those who help.
DPL is Dynamic Page List, short answer--able to create lists of articles and pull article content based on category, namespace, etc. Yes, to much info on one page. The Recommended Reading is actually edit linked back to the page they come from. If you click the Components Recommended Reading edit link, you will be editing the list on that page, simple. Makes maintenance of them from the "Main" pages easy, just edit the list. The rest of the page links are all DPL'd so there is no maintenance of them. Flow would be, 'Here, you should read these first, see more link, here are even more you might want to read' which should make it easy to find more articles. Sometimes looking at Category pages, everything blends, plus a DPL call allows you to see pages in multiple categories, look at Categories, 'Tutorials' and 'Component Development' then list all pages in both categories.
Yes, multiple listings of a Series of articles is silly. They just need to be recategorised which I haven't got to yet. Something like "Tutorials in a Series" for the series of articles, with a main page just in "Tutorials" which will then only show the "Start Page" for the tutorials in the DPL'd box. Take care ---- Tom Hutchison (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2012 (CDT)

Coding style and standards‎[edit]

Thanks for the bad link notice. I know I checked that link when I archived the page so I'm just plain stumped. Anyway, you can check and see if it looks ok now. Tom Hutchison (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2012 (CST)

No problem, just trying to help. They probably just moved it or so.
I only hope those 2 links you adopted don't contradict eachother, bc. I just found them, but didn't read them through or anything. E-motiv (former E-builds) (talk)