[#37055] - [4.1] page class not suffix
- Closed
- 21 Feb 2022
- Medium
- Build: 4.1-dev
- # 37055
- Diff
- brianteeman:pageclass
User tests: Successful: Unsuccessful:
Pull Request for Issue #37047 .
The option to set a page class on a menu item sets a class on the body tag. But in some places it is also used on the container div of the component. As it is a class and not a suffix now (despite the name which wasnt changed for bc) this PR ensures that it is used as a class and not a suffix. ie there is a space before the page class.
PS not sure if this page class should even be used here so an alternative would be to remove it from these files
| Status | New | ⇒ | Pending |
joomla-cms-bot
- | Category | ⇒ | Front End com_contact com_content Layout |
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
Quite correct. I guess I was being lazy and copying the existing code from com_wrapper. I will update this pr shortly. Hopefully someone can then decide if the classes are even needed/desired
I have tested this item
Patch works. Nice catch!
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/37055.
I have tested this item
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/37055.
| Status | Pending | ⇒ | Ready to Commit |
RTC
This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/tracker/joomla-cms/37055.
So we will break all templates which relies on the fact, that the page class suffix is attached to the existing classes (beside that it was a brackish decision in the past to put this class anywhere else than the body tag).
I see the point in this PR, but for b/c reasons I can't merge it (and probably for 5.0 we should remove it from inside the extensions as suggested by Brian).
I fully agree and understand
| Status | Ready to Commit | ⇒ | Closed |
| Closed_Date | 0000-00-00 00:00:00 | ⇒ | 2022-02-21 19:09:38 |
| Closed_By | ⇒ | brianteeman | |
| Labels |
Added:
?
|
||
IMHO This will add empty spaces in the class names which is better to avoid. Some HTML validator might get picky about it.
Why not use: