Modification Site

[Reminder]

Are you going to open similar sites vbulletin.org?

 

[Forsaken]

Modifications System a very good idea. MyBB is a system might look like. I can write this plugin.

http://community.woltlab.com/db/index.php

WoltLabs system is a bit better. 

 

[island]

There will be no official vB.org type site for XenForo modifications. Modifications will be an official part of this community,

This sounds excellent. I love the vbulletin.org community (one of the main reasons I chose vbulletin.) But I found the division between the .com and .org a bit of an annoyance. I always want to know if anyone has done task xyz with the stock software first, so I ask at the .com. Occasionally the answer will be 'yes, you can do that already', but more often it's 're-ask your question over at .org - there's no way to do it stock.' Much more efficient to have it all under one roof, where for example a question on how to do something could even be moved to mod requests if there's no way to accomplish it without a mod.

 

[ankurs]

I can't imagine this being the case, though I could be mistaken. I doubt that Kier/Mike want to support every modification hosted on the site - we'd never get v2!

agreed, it will be hard to support each modification; maybe they can support some modifications that are officially approved ?

However, I do like the idea of having a team of officials who check modifications for their legitimacy and give them some kind of seal of approval

yes, that would be much better

 

[feldon30]

This is a really odd thread, considering all of this material has already been discussed in about a dozen threads.

Will mods be hosted here or at another site (xenforo.org, etc.)? -- Here

As for paid mods being somehow "against the spirit of open source", um this is not a GPL/open source software. I hope that there will be an App Store for paid mods, although I imagine quite a few mods will be free. This is no different than vB.org which has a good mix of both paid and free mods.

 

[EQnoble]

we're hoping XF to be the obama of forums

With the difference that Xenforo can say "yes we can" and IS SHOWING US THAT

 

[CurveGotti]

As for paid mods being somehow "against the spirit of open source", um this is not a GPL/open source software. I hope that there will be an App Store for paid mods, although I imagine quite a few mods will be free. This is no different than vB.org which has a good mix of both paid and free mods.

I completely agree, however I would hope that in order for people to post paid mods there would be some strict requirements as to their responsibilities to the people that have purchased the mod, as far as bug fixes go, that are inforced. IE: post a paid mod that has a known security risk that is never fixed = license ban( Just an example).

I also think it would be nice to have a team of people that would look over the majority of mods to make sure they are following some sort of guide lines, but at some point I think it would become an overwhelming effort.

 

[Blandt]

This is a really odd thread, considering all of this material has already been discussed in about a dozen threads.

Will mods be hosted here or at another site (xenforo.org, etc.)? -- Here

As for paid mods being somehow "against the spirit of open source", um this is not a GPL/open source software. I hope that there will be an App Store for paid mods, although I imagine quite a few mods will be free. This is no different than vB.org which has a good mix of both paid and free mods.

Perhaps it was discussed by other folks, but not with us I mean.. what's your point?

 

[Elizabeth]

This is a really odd thread, considering all of this material has already been discussed in about a dozen threads.


Will mods be hosted here or at another site (xenforo.org, etc.)? -- Here

As for paid mods being somehow "against the spirit of open source", um this is not a GPL/open source software. I hope that there will be an App Store for paid mods, although I imagine quite a few mods will be free. This is no different than vB.org which has a good mix of both paid and free mods.

Probably like having another thread about it.  

Perhaps it was discussed by other folks, but not with us  I mean.. what's your point?

 Yes, we will answer questions but search is such a nice feature, don't you think? 
 

 

 

[Blandt]

Probably like having another thread about it.

Yes, we will answer questions but search is such a nice feature, don't you think?

Yes it is a nice feature indeed.
I just got here, and someone asked OUR opinion.
I don't think I can search for my opinion on that nice feature Again if this is an issue sorry for giving my opinion or even discussing it

 

[Elizabeth]

Yes it is a nice feature indeed.
I just got here, and someone asked OUR opinion.
I don't think I can search for my opinion on that nice feature Again if this is an issue sorry for giving my opinion or even discussing it

Giving your opinion is great. And yes, we all are new at some point...I didn't mean to sound harsh...been up too long today and getting grumpy. 

 

[projectego]

There will be no official vB.org type site for XenForo modifications. Modifications will be an official part of this community,

Brilliant! As insignificant a problem as it may be, I'd much rather not have to register on a second website only to be able to gain access to modifications. Don't get me wrong, vbulletin.org is superb and I've download many an excellent add-on from there, but I'm really likin' the idea of being able to skim through the library of mods - that I'm sure will be made available - here, with minimum fuss.

 

[Blandt]

Giving your opinion is great. And yes, we all are new at some point....

Merge threads is nice too, I'm not sure if this has been presented by the developer yet!

 

[Elizabeth]

Merge threads is nice too, I'm not sure if this has been presented by the developer yet!

That is true.  

 

[Deleted member 2163]

This is a really odd thread, considering all of this material has already been discussed in about a dozen threads.

Will mods be hosted here or at another site (xenforo.org, etc.)? -- Here

As for paid mods being somehow "against the spirit of open source", um this is not a GPL/open source software. I hope that there will be an App Store for paid mods, although I imagine quite a few mods will be free. This is no different than vB.org which has a good mix of both paid and free mods.

I think you misunderstood my comment on being against paid mods. I never said open source, nor did I imply that XF was to be open source I was only saying that if the goal is "community", paid mods need to be separate from everything else.

The only paid mods I would see as appropriate are ones developed by the XF devs if they think that the functionality doesn't belong in core (although that seems doubtful). I'd imagine if they released 1st party mods, they'd be things like "XenForo CMS" and the like.

 

[borbole]

I can't imagine this being the case, though I could be mistaken. I doubt that Kier/Mike want to support every modification hosted on the site - we'd never get v2!

However, I do like the idea of having a team of officials who check modifications for their legitimacy and give them some kind of seal of approval

I second this idea/suggestion as well. Maybe a Mod/Theme Squad to check all the submitted mods and make sure that their code is clean and safe. And for the themes that they should pass xhtml strict validation.

 

[James]

I second this idea/suggestion as well. Maybe a Mod/Theme Squad to check all the submitted mods and make sure that their code is clean and safe. And for the themes that they should pass xhtml strict validation.

Why pass XHTML when HTML5 is around the corner Validation isn't a big issue as long as it works. Things like code exploits in the modifications are more important. It'd be a time-consuming role but it might give XF members a more positive approach

 

[Elizabeth]

I second this idea/suggestion as well. Maybe a Mod/Theme Squad to check all the submitted mods and make sure that their code is clean and safe. And for the themes that they should pass xhtml strict validation.

Why pass XHTML when HTML5 is around the corner Validation isn't a big issue as long as it works. Things like code exploits in the modifications are more important. It'd be a time-consuming role but it might give XF members a more positive approach

James is right about HTML5, the W3C has dropped xhtml in favor of HTML5. See this statement: XHTML2 Working Group Home Page

 

[borbole]

Why pass XHTML when HTML5 is around the corner Validation isn't a big issue as long as it works. Things like code exploits in the modifications are more important. It'd be a time-consuming role but it might give XF members a more positive approach

I disagree about the validation. I think it is important for various reasons, such as: it allows for greater accessibility, cross-browser compatibility, and can even possibly help your search engine rankings to mention a few.

Whereas about the modfications I totally agree. While the time consuming part might look like a downside, it is something that every user that will download and use modifications downloaded from here will benifit from in the short and long run.

 

[Elizabeth]

I disagree about the validation. I think it is important for various reasons, such as: it allows for greater accessibility, cross-browser compatibility, and can even possibly help your search engine rankings to mention a few.
 
Whereas about the modfications I totally agree. While the time consuming part might look like a downside, it is something that every user that will download and use modifications downloaded from here will benifit from in the short and long run.

Okay, assume it does validate, then ONE error and it fails. http://diveintohtml5.org/past.html
Everything you know about XHTML is wrong

Why are MIME types important? Why do I keep coming back to them? Three words: draconian error handling. Browsers have always been “forgiving” with HTML. If you create an HTML page but forget to give it a <title>, browsers will display the page anyway, even though the <title> element has always been required in every version of HTML. Certain tags are not allowed within other tags, but if you create a page that puts them inside anyway, browsers will just deal with it (somehow) and move on without displaying an error message.
 
As you might expect, the fact that “broken” HTML markup still worked in web browsers led authors to create broken HTML pages. A lot of broken pages. By some estimates, over 99% of HTML pages on the web today have at least one error in them. But because these errors don’t cause browsers to display visible error messages, nobody ever fixes them.
 
The W3C saw this as a fundamental problem with the web, and they set out to correct it. XML, published in 1997, broke from the tradition of forgiving clients and mandated that all programs that consumed XML must treat so-called “well-formedness” errors as fatal. This concept of failing on the first error became known as “draconian error handling,” after the Greek leader Draco who instituted the death penalty for relatively minor infractions of his laws. When the W3C reformulated HTML as an XML vocabulary, they mandated that all documents served with the new application/xhtml+xml MIME type would be subject to draconian error handling. If there was even a single error in your XHTML page, web browsers would have no choice but to stop processing and display an error message to the end user.
 
This idea was not universally popular. With an estimated error rate of 99% on existing pages, the ever-present possibility of displaying errors to the end user, and the dearth of new features in XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 to justify the cost, web authors basically ignored application/xhtml+xml. But that doesn’t mean they ignored XHTML altogether. Oh, most definitely not. Appendix C of the XHTML 1.0 specification gave the web authors of the world a loophole: “Use something that looks kind of like XHTML syntax, but keep serving it with the text/html MIME type.” And that’s exactly what thousands of web developers did: they “upgraded” to XHTML syntax but kept serving it with a text/html MIME type.
 
Even today, millions of web pages claim to be XHTML. They start with the XHTML doctype on the first line, use lowercase tag names, use quotes around attribute values, and add a trailing slash after empty elements like <br /> and <hr />. But only a tiny fraction of these pages are served with the application/xhtml+xml MIME type that would trigger XML’s draconian error handling. Any page served with a MIME type of text/html — regardless of doctype, syntax, or coding style — will be parsed using a “forgiving” HTML  parser, silently ignoring any markup errors, and never alerting end users (or anyone else) even if the page is technically broken.

 
 
 

 

[Rob]

I would hope to see a mod discussion forum before this goes gold. There is a strong case for mod discussions to happen as soon as a the beta is released so that modders can begin working on beta's of their mods in order to gain feedback and make bug fixes. If this doesnt happen during the beta of XF then I cant see any reason to wait to gold when release candidates *should* be solid enough for modders to begin releasing their mods.