Update to the MODDB policy for phpBB3.

[lefty74]

thanks paul

[primehalo]

I am also unclear as to what an additional required xml file would be. If the instructions are required, why wouldn't they be placed in the main install file?

According to the MOD DB policy:

Optional install files or instructions should be placed within the contrib directory. Additional required instructions should be placed in the root directory or in directory called named xml/

It's also allowed to place the XSL in the contrib or xml directory.

So as I understand it, most MODs will have only a contrib directory, and not an xml directory (since almost all additional instructions are optional), unless the MOD author prefers to put the XSL file in the xml directory instead of the contrib directory.

[iEric]

...or suggestions you can post them here.

I would like to make a suggestion to the <comments> tag.

Code: Select all

    <edit>
    <comment lang="en"><![CDATA[Before you do THIS edit. Go and get some more coffee...]]></comment>

Just like the inline-edits have different colors that shows they are not normal edits - I think <comment> should also have something, and that makes it more easy to spot.

Maybe a box of it's own:

Code: Select all

/* Comment Box */
div.mod-comment { background-color: #eef6ff; border: solid 1px #777; margin: 10px 0; padding: 0 10px 5px; }
div.mod-comment:hover { border: solid 1px #6699CC; }
div.mod-comment dd { color: #bd7901; }

or just make the text in another color to get more visible:

Code: Select all

/* Comment Text */
div.mod-comment dd { color: #006633; }

Of course the colors and values are only examples and can be different. But just something to make it "stick out"

[Paul]

The policy has been updated to include a small change for the XSL files:

XSL file

Because of a security change in firefox3, the MODX file will not displayed within firefox3 when the xsl file is in another directory.
Due to this issue we need to require the xsl be placed in all directories where a MODX xml file is. We will repack all MODs that dont have XSL files within all directories.

Starting from this moment, we will require to have the XSL in all directories where a xml file is. MODs currently in queue will be repacked to add these.

[primehalo]

Just to clarify, the XSL can be still be in a lower-level subdirectory? So this would be okay:

install.xml
contrib/modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/subsilver2.xml

And this would be okay:
install.xml
contrib/modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/templates/subsilver2.xml
contrib/templates/modx.prosilver.en.xsl

But this would not:
install.xml
contrib/modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/templates/subsilver2.xml

[Paul]

No, that will not work with firefox3. The install.xml will not be displayed. There will be a xsl also needed in the same dir as the install.xml is.
So this is the correct one:
install.xml
modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/subsilver2.xml

I personally really dont like this, but there isnt really any other solution with firefox3

[primehalo]

No, that will not work with firefox3. The install.xml will not be displayed. There will be a xsl also needed in the same dir as the install.xml is.
So this is the correct one:
install.xml
modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/modx.prosilver.en.xsl
contrib/subsilver2.xml

I personally really dont like this, but there isnt really any other solution with firefox3

Actually, that's not quite correct, as this will definitely work in Firefox 3:
./install.xml
./contrib/subsilver2.xml
./contrib/modx.prosilver.en.xsl

The Firefox 3 security issue does not allow accessing files that are in a higher level on a file system (as in, if you use "../"), as I have verified on both Windows and Linux, but it has absolutely no problem with lower level access. I have repackaged all of my MODs like this, and Firefox 3 has no trouble with it:
./installation instructions.xml
./contrib/template subsilver2.xml
./contrib/language es.xml
./contrib/language ru.xml
./contrib/xsl/modx.prosilver.en.xsl

[Paul]

Hmm, weird. I tested it before, and didnt work. asked bantu to test it now, and did work. I will look into it tomorrow a bit more and see if I can make a more clear way when it dont work.

[A_O_C]

i can see this getting confusing anyway, so why not just leave the new policy as it stands (an XSL file in every folder that contains an XML file). i kinda like it better that way anyway.

[david63]

i can see this getting confusing anyway, so why not just leave the new policy as it stands (an XSL file in every folder that contains an XML file). i kinda like it better that way anyway.

I would go with that idea - it is far less confusing, not open to interpretation and would lead to less problems.

[primehalo]

MOD authors that are confused could go ahead and use that method, but those who are not confused shouldn't be forced to include extra, unnecessary files in their MOD package. Plus, it is better for the end user if the XSL files are put in a separate subdirectory so that the file won't be accidentally opened.

[Highway of Life]

MOD authors that are confused could go ahead and use that method, but those who are not confused shouldn't be forced to include extra, unnecessary files in their MOD package. Plus, it is better for the end user if the XSL files are put in a separate subdirectory so that the file won't be accidentally opened.

I agree with this... we will discuss, but I don’t see any reason why this would not be a problem. -- Basically, we should accept both methods (the fewer restrictions on packaging, the better).

[Erik Frèrejean]

MOD authors that are confused could go ahead and use that method, but those who are not confused shouldn't be forced to include extra, unnecessary files in their MOD package. Plus, it is better for the end user if the XSL files are put in a separate subdirectory so that the file won't be accidentally opened.

I agree with this... we will discuss, but I don’t see any reason why this would not be a problem. -- Basically, we should accept both methods (the fewer restrictions on packaging, the better).

Any word on this? I'm still packing the XSL in every directory (as stated in the packaging guidelines), but I agree with primehalo that it would be better if we where able to put that file in a separate directory.

[nickvergessen]

Any word on this? I'm still packing the XSL in every directory (as stated in the packaging guidelines), but I agree with primehalo that it would be better if we where able to put that file in a separate directory.

Problem is that Firefox3 so far can not load it than

[primehalo]

Any word on this? I'm still packing the XSL in every directory (as stated in the packaging guidelines), but I agree with primehalo that it would be better if we where able to put that file in a separate directory.

Problem is that Firefox3 so far can not load it than

Yes it can, as long as the subdirectory is underneath the current directory. Firefox 3 only won't read it when it has to go up one directory to find the file.