layouts\joomla\pagination\links.php
Not touched this file but I can't see it being used???

Looks like this file is used in the admin (when you turn off the override) I still dont understand why we have a different layout

We have two types of pagination and if I remember correctly it depends how you create the pagination. Its strange and don't asked me why it is like it is.

well I will make sure the other one is a11y compliant when I remove the atum override etc and after #21293 is merged

@ciar4n can you advise on the css please

.disabled.page-link:hover {
  background: transparent;
}
.disabled.page-link {
  color: #999;
}
.active.page-link.current {
  background-color: #dee2e6;
  color: #999;
}

Translates to the following in scss..

.page-link {
  &.active {
    background-color: #dee2e6;
    color: #999;
  }
  &.disabled {
    color: #999;
    &:hover {
      background: transparent;
    }
  }
}

I dont believe there is need for the .current

CSS ? on the links
Currently only the actual number is clickable - it should be the entire area - please advise on this

You need to remove the padding from the .page-link and add it to the .page-link a instead

And which scss file would be the best. It should be global and not template
specific.

We currently don't have any CSS file loaded globally. Why do you say this should be global?

It should be global and not template specific.

It should be layout (pagination) specific!

Also I thought that we will not depend on Font awesome for the front end but I still see FA classes and also not even loading the required asset here... ?

I give up. You make rules that are not documented anywhere. If it's not
documented then it's not a rule.

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018, 18:37 dGrammatiko, notifications@github.com wrote:

It should be global and not template specific.

It should be layout (pagination) specific!

Also I thought that we will not depend on Font awesome for the front end
but I still see FA classes and also not even loading the required asset
here... ?

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#21306 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABPH8QgjMoVh8G6XphZcQlaZaC6-OOH3ks5uMzi-gaJpZM4VmaJ4
.

@ciar4n maybe I used the wrong terminology. But surely we have some standard CSS that is used everywhere and can be used by any template.

Also I thought that we will not depend on Font awesome for the front end but I still see FA classes and also not even loading the required asset here...

Nothing to do with this pull request...

But surely we have some standard CSS that is used everywhere and can be used by any template.

Nope. We're trying to standardize CSS classes that won't change because of a framework update, but there is no standard CSS that is included into every page/template.

You make rules that are not documented anywhere.

Seriously now... You need to grow up dude...

But surely we have some standard CSS that is used everywhere and can be used by any template.

Excluding the typical reset or normalise CSS, there is very little non-opinionated 'standard CSS' that would be used by every template. I think the best we can do is to lead by good example and place all a11y CSS in the cassiopeia template.

@ciar4n I applied the scss you recommended but it really does need the current so hopefully my scss is ok now

I included the compiled css so that it can be tested with patchtester. I assume that they wont be included when committed

@brianteeman can you please give Test Instructions?

original post updated

thanks for Update @brianteeman

Can you fix conflicts here please so I can merge this :)

@wilsonge are you commiting the compiled/minified files

@wilsonge that should be conflicts fixed

For now we're committing minified template CSS - this will change in the future though once we've made a decision on where to put the template SASS files and whether they should go into the media directory or not like @dgrammatiko proposed.

ok and thanks

Thanks!