nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Web agency HTML and SitePublisher pages: the eternal struggle?

Emanuel

Hi everyone.

I had to implement into Teamsite Smiley Frustrated

ite Publisher all of the pure html pages (with some JavaScript) that another company released to us (html mock-up).

From a funcional point of view, after some work on pages, FAL, components, ecc i have acquired a complete mach (from the point of view of the user experience) between the pure html and the html generated from .pages, developed with SP.

The thing i am not liking is that i had to do a lot of customization to their css's, because SP tends to create custom div ID / name / class / hierarchy, thus messing up all of their style, i find this to be very very complex, being able to decide the exact layout and div identifiers while writing pages and components would have been much more quick and easy to do, this will allow a 100% css compliancy and would be time saving (since you already have to write the xsl).

I can only imagine what could happen if i had to do this work on a JS heavy page (that uses jquery for example)...

On top of that, there is a clear policy issue here, because you are changing a deliverable, thus acquiring all of the risks that may came because of that.

I made this post because i would really like to hear some kind of best practices, or success story from you in this regards, for future projects.

As well as asking a question Smiley Very Happy

:

i use a custom FAL and a custom div-layout.xsl for html creation, but the div id are being created as default "c+componentid": this is very ugly because all of my div got id's like c1323121312312312, and SP seems to overwrite any kind of change i make in a component ID from his appearance XML section, is there a way to fix this?

(hard coding div id into the div-layout.xsl is a clear answer but it means crippling the mantainability of pages in a tool that is supposed to enhance it).

Thank you very much Smiley Wink

Emanuel.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

nipper

post deleted

Emanuel

Any ideas on this??

As well as asking a question :

i use a custom FAL and a custom div-layout.xsl for html creation, but the div id are being created as default "c+componentid": this is very ugly because all of my div got id's like c1323121312312312, and SP seems to overwrite any kind of change i make in a component ID from his appearance XML section, is there a way to fix this?

(hard coding div id into the div-layout.xsl is a clear answer but it means crippling the mantainability of pages in a tool that is supposed to enhance it).

Thank you very much

Emanuel.

RonaldV

Emanuel,

your are asking 2 questions in 1 post which tends to make replies difficult. I most cases one of the questions tends to be forgotten.

Anyway, to answer your first question on 'how to work with a design agency', I would send the agency an example html-page, in the structure as generated by SP, and require them to design the html/css around this (fixed) structure. This is difficult because I have found that design agency usually don't understand this kind of requirement and will re-do the full html-code. You must really force them to it! Simply send back their html-code by saying that it is not compatible with SP. (Or stop using SP :-)

Your second question is not really clear to me. Asp.net also has a practice of generation long id's for the html-elements. In css, this can usually be circumvented by using proper css-classes. (But nevertheless, using id's in css can definitely be better, in come cases).

Hope this helps.

Emanuel

Emanuel,

your are asking 2 questions in 1 post which tends to make replies difficult. I most cases one of the questions tends to be forgotten.

Anyway, to answer your first question on 'how to work with a design agency', I would send the agency an example html-page, in the structure as generated by SP, and require them to design the html/css around this (fixed) structure. This is difficult because I have found that design agency usually don't understand this kind of requirement and will re-do the full html-code. You must really force them to it! Simply send back their html-code by saying that it is not compatible with SP. (Or stop using SP :-)

Your second question is not really clear to me. Asp.net also has a practice of generation long id's for the html-elements. In css, this can usually be circumvented by using proper css-classes. (But nevertheless, using id's in css can definitely be better, in come cases).

Hope this helps.

Hi Ronald!

Sorry for the organization of my questions, is less then optimal Smiley Wink

For the first question i have to say that what you suggest is probably the only way to go... the problem is that constantly rejecting deliverables is less optimal then being able to adjust what SP creates in term of lead times (especially if there are different companies involved).

For the second question:

SP likes to create a big "element #" id div that contains several divs with "iw_component" classes and "c+*component_id" id's.

It's clear that all this logic is inside the div-layout.xsl changing it, or making a custom one can provide all of the customization needed, this however cripples the maintanability, since you could have one layout for every page type, this is, however, an option.

I would like to know if there is another place where you can decide/ovverride the id and classes that will get used by SP (for example the appearance xml section of components).

Thank you again for the answer Smiley Wink