Item5323: WebTopBar and WebBottomBar refer to TWiki's Web
Priority: Normal
Current State: No Action Required
Released In:
Target Release: n/a
viewbottombar.pattern.tmpl and viewtopbar.pattern.tmpl reference
%TWIKIWEB%.WebBottomBar
and
%TWIKIWEB%.WebTopBar
respectively. This means that they'll get clobbered if there's an upgrade. It's naive to assume people aren't going to customise these topics, presumably that's the exact reason they exist as wiki topics at all! I think it's just an oversight that they've gone into the TWiki Web. They should be in
%USERSWEB%.
--
TWiki:Main.ChrisFLewis - 05 Feb 2008
IMHO they should be
%WEB%
,
%INCLUDINGWEB%
or even
%BASEWEB%
cause you do want to customize top, bottom, left (and maybe even right) bar on a web basis, don't you? But I guess that has historic reasons and it can easily be done by a local skin customization anyway.
--
TWiki:Main.FranzJosefGigler - 05 Feb 2008
Common usage of top and bottom is per site, not per web. For instance, there is one university: one logo, one copyright notice. And multiple webs with their own side bar.
--
TWiki:Main.ArthurClemens - 05 Feb 2008
I would agree with Arthur's assessment, sidebars you might want to change, but I can't see people doing anything in separate webs bar perhaps changing the logo or copyright (which can already be done in
WebPrefs). If you're going crazy enough down the customisation route that you want it to look like whole separate instances, I'd say you probably were doing full-time TWiki Admin anyway, and would be comfortable forking the templates.
--
TWiki:Main.ChrisFLewis - 06 Feb 2008
I think the most dominant view is that top and bottom bars are normally common. If you want a different top bar you can always include a topic from the top or bottom bar that refers to the current web.
With Foswiki the top and bottom bars have example topics that are the defaults. This means that a WebTopBar and WebBottomBar topic tailored to
INCLUDE a %WEB%.WebTopBar will not be overwritten when upgrading.
This should ensure that the key problem of this report is fixed.
So No further Action required
--
KennethLavrsen - 03 May 2009