EdB wrote:

Why am I reading about making skins and plugins work with v3? I mean, when v2 came out we had to upgrade skins we were told

Combing through all these tags to make them future proof is what currently takes the most time and holds back the release of 2.0...

So what's the deal? Did all the effort into all these skins and plugins last for a whopping almost-2-years?

Where? Didn't know that.

From experience with 3.1-alpha HEAD version, v2.x skins works fine - the only tidbits lacking is the support for the new built-in feature for "features post", and "Intro- posts". Haven't encountered anything else in the skinning side of things that will break v2.x for v3.x.

But, a skin first made for v3.x will not work pre-3.x, again as per my experience when I tested firebug and pixeled under v2.x, it threw errors and the skin went unlayout (which baffles me).

Plugin-side, I'm using your Widget Manager plugin fine for v3.x ;)
The photodropper plugin also works fine.
The Disqus plugin doesn't (well, I can't make it to work for v2.x either :p )

Going to test next the Creative Commons plugin.
Basically, I'm testing out what I want to use (or tempting plugins).

Unless they are going to put up changes that will break the forward-compatibility of v2.x skins and plugins?

Okay that's good news then.

Yeah I can see how older skins won't have newer features, but then all this "works in v3" is very misleading. Because see a 2.* skin will work perfectly well in v3 - just not with some features. Same thing held true for some super-old skins for a heck of a long time. When I "upgraded" them I was mostly focused on XHTML / CSS compliance, but added some tidbits that didn't exist when the skins first came out.

I gotta do an upgrade to creativecommons soon because they've issued new national ports, and have probably made changes to existing national ports. That totally sucked on the first upgrade cycle - finding out that different nations were on different versions AND were sometimes upgrading the version of CCL they were honoring. Oh well. At least this time I'm hip to the process I'll have to go through to get 'er done eh?

EDIT: http://b2evolution.net/news/2007/06/21/skins_2_0 is where the bad/glad news about "nothing works but it will forever" happened.

True, in a way "works perfectly in v3 but w/o some of the new features" is a bit contradictory. Hmm, I'll probably write a short "new tidbits" of v3 when the final version, or atleast RC1 of v3 comes out, to help easing out the skin upgrade of the other users.

-----
Yah, hehe :p SG's CC is now available.
But isn't the changes between countries has more to do with "terminologies" and less on legal matters? Most signatories are probably following similar (if not identical) copyright laws.

I think it'll be a lil bit easier, just add the new local CCs like SG, as compared to the first upgrade when these local versions came out.

I'd say more on legal matters, though an older version of CCL is technically still valid. The thing is, to me, if the country of NationLand now recognizes a CCL of v2.5 as a technically valid and proper legal agreement then the ccl plugin should provide that license. It doesn't matter (to me) if NationLand is new to embracing CCLs or has accepted the legal constructs of 2.5 when they used to recognize only up to 2.0. To me both parts are of equal merit ... even though the fact of NationLand finally buying into the program is clearly more significant than their acceptance of a newer version of the license.

Then again all I ever do is steal stuff and hope I don't get caught :)

Ahh yes, that is a nuisance to track. Example, Malaysia is still using 2.5 iirc, and I heard from a friend they're authorized CC group is considering upgrading to 3.0 (because SG accepted 3.0).

------------
Hehe :p If it's CC 2.x or 3.0, it's all at least CC By, so we aren't really "stealing".

What I find hard are those who mixes CC and the anti-scrape service that-I-cant-remember-the-name. They're just not compatible, then there are also those who are mixing "Copyright (C) YEAR. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" and CC!!

Thank God, I haven't seen anyone mixing "Copyright" and "CC By-SA", that's legally "Copyright" and "Copyleft".

It's hard to use the content of those type of sites with contradicting licenses. If they ever touch me, I'll tell them their content is Dual-Licensed :lol: