![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
I know it might be waaay too early to start knocking on Planet Caravan since the code roll out hasn't been publicly announced yet, but I thought I'd nip this problem quickly so other users can enjoy this beautiful theme without that *one* problem that irks them.
There's a styling bug when it comes to turning off comments for a journal entry.
When comments are enabled in any way we get this nice entry management link bar at the bottom of every entry on the single/permalink page:

But when I disable comments for an entry, I get this:

The link bar styling is gone because it seems the management links just tag along with the styling of the interaction links. I've tried styling them on their own but they ride off the link bar onto their own disheveled bar.
Can this be fixed with CSS? Or a theme layer until this is fixed in the source code?
BTW, I am using Firefox 20.0.1...
Thank you for your time.
There's a styling bug when it comes to turning off comments for a journal entry.
When comments are enabled in any way we get this nice entry management link bar at the bottom of every entry on the single/permalink page:

But when I disable comments for an entry, I get this:

The link bar styling is gone because it seems the management links just tag along with the styling of the interaction links. I've tried styling them on their own but they ride off the link bar onto their own disheveled bar.
Can this be fixed with CSS? Or a theme layer until this is fixed in the source code?
BTW, I am using Firefox 20.0.1...
Thank you for your time.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 02:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 02:44 am (UTC)I await a patch! :D Thanks for the prompt reply!
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 02:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 05:25 am (UTC)EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out! I was looking at the wrong page *g*
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 05:46 am (UTC)(EDIT: Glad you found it!)
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 05:52 am (UTC)EDIT: And Mark has just pushed it live! Let me know if it's working as intended now.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 05:58 am (UTC)And thank you again for the speedy responses!
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 06:07 am (UTC)It's only 11 here, and I had the day off, so I have no real excuse.
And no problem - thank you for reporting it!
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 06:12 am (UTC)The entry interaction links are now "off" in line with the management links, but this might just be because of the font I'm using?
http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/technodracula/newbug_zps045c0c73.jpg
Though, I fixed it with the following CSS and tested the alignment in photoshop in pixels:
ul.entry-interaction-links, .comment-interaction-links
{
margin-top: -39px;
}
I just hope my changes will be rendered properly in most modern browsers. Since I had to use px and not em (em didn't fix it).
(Testing it with browsershots, not looking good...)
(EDIT2: I think I got it to work in em! I used -2.999em instead of -39px. Didn't know em can go that far back in decimals! I checked it in photoshop and it lines up!)
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 06:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 06:35 am (UTC)http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d186/technodracula/newnewcommentbug_zpsf0931320.jpg
The comment management links go over the interaction links. Have no idea how to go about this...
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 06:40 am (UTC)(blah blah conflicting alignment blah inheritence is a pain blah)
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 08:15 pm (UTC)I don't know if you feel like manipulating the print_entry and print_comment functions in Planet Caravan, but putting links on the opposite side of the footer and making the freakin' things line up perfectly is relatively simple if you're willing to hurl both of the UL's into a wrapper. There's a liiiiiitttle offset when you've got images for the one side/text for the other, but it still eliminates some of the weird positioning muckery you have to do otherwise.
Then again, if not many people are having problems with the alignment, or noticing it, it might not be worth the effort…?
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 08:30 pm (UTC)I think I managed to find an offset that looks near-perfect, though, so it should be a bit better than the screenshot there once the last push goes through (hopefully soonish).
(The other way, instead of adding a new wrapper, is to take print_tags out of the footer and put it up with metadata, which is what I did for Tectonic. Then you can do styling on .footer and do whatever you want with the ULs)
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 08:39 pm (UTC)I just did a quick preview of Planet Caravan -- I'm not sure what they looked like before, but you've got them lining up pretty gosh darn perfect now, at least on my end.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 08:46 pm (UTC)And yeah, that's one of two spots that I wish we could... idk have two different versions of in core2. The other is where the userpic prints, because sometimes it's useful to have it up in the entry header wrappers.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 09:01 pm (UTC)Hmmm hmmmm. I will talk with Fu if I catch her on IRC later tonight about the feasability of that. I know a few people (including myself) who really like tags to be styled as part of metadata, visually, so I think there's reasonable desire for it - I just don't know if adding it would gum up other things back-end.
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 09:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 09:23 pm (UTC)I know core2 a little bit and I can't think of any problems it would cause, but Fu is The Expert (being the person who wrote it and all), so I'll defer to her judgment. But it'd certainly give designers some more flexibility without having to write overrides
no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 10:29 pm (UTC)Looking forward to hearing what Fu tells you!
no subject
Date: 2013-04-26 07:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-26 11:45 am (UTC)Exciting, omg! Please let me know if I can be of any help with this!
no subject
Date: 2013-04-26 07:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-04-25 09:31 pm (UTC)