[theme-reviewers] required CSS classes

Sun Oct 9 01:01:36 UTC 2011

 Cheers Emil, Ah yes you're right Images with captions get a dynamic width
specified in the wrapping div:
<div id="attachment_2787" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width:
310px">...
<div id="attachment_2787" class="wp-caption alignnone" style="width:
190px">....

prevents that issue, so width:auto is fine to use with images that get
captions, since it's limited to the parent div's size, just not for images
without captions.

On 9 October 2011 12:00, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:

> Update, can't update this in codex because it does not apply to WP
> Generated Styles... but you see my point.
>
>
> *----*
> *Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac | E:
> emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
> Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
>
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually I lied sorry:
>>
>> #content img {
>> max-width:98%;
>> height:auto;
>> }
>>
>> Is for wide images, I will note that in codex shortly.
>>
>>
>> *----*
>> *Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac | E:
>> emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
>> Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Dion,
>>>
>>> Correct and this was tested on all major browsers and classes are
>>> compatible with Theme Unit Test data. Please feel free to test this out, I
>>> haven't seen any issue with IE8, or any other IE browsers. IE6 was not
>>> tested. You can see
>>> http://themeid.com/demo/highlander/2008/09/03/images-test/ and go over
>>> all 4 pages. Nothing is written in stone, suggestions, correction or
>>> possible bugs are always welcome. I am using the same thing for my Shell
>>> Theme, as well as any Theme designed for my clients. So far no complaints,
>>> but hey you never know right? :)
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Emil
>>>
>>> *----*
>>> *Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac | E:
>>> emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
>>> Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:34 PM, Dion Hulse (dd32) <wordpress at dd32.id.au>wrote:
>>>
>>>> I haven't tested it, but looking at that link, you've used width:auto on
>>>> the img, which you've probably done to make sure the image doesn't end up
>>>> larger than it's parent container? Since it's within the .wp-caption it
>>>> might be contained to the caption, but I'm not sure without testing it
>>>> out..
>>>>
>>>> There's a trac ticket(http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/18775) for
>>>> a user who's theme included something similar, and it removed the ability
>>>> for the user to use the "Scaling" functions (ie. insert image at 70% size),
>>>> the width:auto overrides the HTML width attributes, causing the image to
>>>> always be at full width.
>>>>
>>>> The TwentyEleven theme even has that problem (It was introduced as a fix
>>>> for IE8 where images would overflow) - Unfortunately there are no css
>>>> classes which you can use to detect that scaling.
>>>>
>>>> *tl;dr:* Using width:auto in classes that post images can lead to the
>>>> Image scaling functionality of WordPress not working
>>>>
>>>> I thought it would be worth noting that for the theme developers among
>>>> the list.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 October 2011 11:20, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nicely done! I modified this while back as well
>>>>> http://codex.wordpress.org/CSS#WordPress_Generated_Classes, fully
>>>>> working example that covers Theme Unit Data, including the wide images etc.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *----*
>>>>> *Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac | E:
>>>>> emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
>>>>>  Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert
>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Edward Caissie <
>>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicely done, Kirk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We probably should have added something like that before. It's great
>>>>>> to have a fresher set of eyes looking at things. Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cais.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looks good!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, that makes more sense already. I've added a small note to the
>>>>>>>> Codex<http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#WordPress-Generated_CSS_Classes> for
>>>>>>>> clarification.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8 October 2011 10:23, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Kirk,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They're required because they're added/used by WordPress.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only ones that are allowed to be "blank" are .sticky and
>>>>>>>>> .bypostauthor. The intent here is that the Theme developer consider these
>>>>>>>>> classes in the design intent for the Theme. We consider *not* styling them
>>>>>>>>> to be valid design intent, but want to have a modicum of assurance that the
>>>>>>>>> developer has *considered* them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The others are all required to be styled *appropriately*:
>>>>>>>>> .alignleft, .alignright, .aligncenter, .wp-caption, .wp-caption-text,
>>>>>>>>> .gallery-caption
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hope this helps!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 9:16 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can anyone point me to sources explaining the thinking behind the
>>>>>>>>>> required CSS classes? I'm wondering why these particular classes are
>>>>>>>>>> required, and why they can be empty when present. I'm sure there must have
>>>>>>>>>> been extensive discussion at some point, but I've checked the list archives
>>>>>>>>>> and can't find anything definitive.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Kirk
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20111009/36054646/attachment.htm>