Unfortunately not.
It is a long time since real work was done on the page.
I don't recall how I did it back then...
I've installed XAMPP for WindowsBtw, you might be interested in this stack since it also integrates nodejs and firebird:
I've updated the OPM website to make it mobile friendly (fixed the width of the card elements) as well I've installed a new theme based on material design, to look a bit better.
We're running PHP 5.6, since the website code doesn't work with PHP 7.
Since the sources are public I'm just waiting till there is an update.
Feel free to improve the PHP code
Hi thanks, I will try improving the html for mobile.
I can install the bootstrap grid, not the components just the grid system? Is more easy to make it responsive without touching a lot of css.
Hi thanks, I will try improving the html for mobile.
I can install the bootstrap grid, not the components just the grid system? Is more easy to make it responsive without touching a lot of css.
You mean some css/js files from the bootstrap library?
So long as their license allows us to
- host the copy
- have the copy in our repro for the website
- They work on all current browsers
I would not see a problem.
I.e. for the main website, those files go into svn, and will then be uploaded, with all the other files.
I'll be going through the changes, probably over the weekend.
First glance looks good.
Just a note, IMHO ok if it's no longer the case....
The 3 columns / boxes on the feature page were designed to always have the same height. So the bottom would align.
I know that is untypical for html. It was a heck of a work to make it happen...
Anyway never mind.
Btw, a pre-existing problem, when the width shrinks, before it goes to menu.
The underlines of the links on top, will overlap with the wrapped links below.
No idea if that is easy to solve.
Looks ok on mobile, except that the head of the home page looks misaligned. The image should be centered imo, and the text right aligned.
* Safari on iPad - the original site looks better as the banner with the image and download button takes up less than 50% of the depth that the new version takes up and the fonts in the new page are much bigger as well. See: old page (https://sentinel.sentry.org/~trev/OLD.PNG) and new page (https://sentinel.sentry.org/~trev/NEW.PNG). This only seems to happen on the iPad (iPadOS 13.6.1).
* Safari on iPad - the original site looks better as the banner with the image and download button takes up less than 50% of the depth that the new version takes up and the fonts in the new page are much bigger as well. See: old page (https://sentinel.sentry.org/~trev/OLD.PNG) and new page (https://sentinel.sentry.org/~trev/NEW.PNG). This only seems to happen on the iPad (iPadOS 13.6.1).
Wouldn't various people want larger fonts for greater readability? Is there some type of enhancement going on related to the browser or OS?
Do you have some form of "inspect"? So you can disable individual css attributes?
Both the html and the body element have a ton of stuff by bootstrap.
If you can disable them one by one, to see which one (if any) is causing this?
The 3 columns / boxes on the feature page were designed to always have the same height. So the bottom would align.They are screwed up in IE 11 now.
So now I ended up doing the fixes myself.... (well my fault for picking it up)I think you've chosen the worst example message you could've chosen. I provided some patches for the FPC website and also sent a mail with fixes and recommendations for the foundation website. :)
And I am not talking about fixes for IE 8 (that were the easy ones by the way). But fixes for modern up to date browsers.
I respect "lainz" for the work he does otherwise. But this web-project went south badly.
The whole thing spun off the thread at (example msg / there are other msgs) https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,51093.msg375124.html#msg375124
Claiming people would help on the website, if only it was on git (or at least avail as source).
I pointed out it was at svn. (and even accepted the changes as git commits on a mirror)
And here is what was mentioned on the other thread too: It's not about git/svn (I accepted git anyway).
It's about whether the patch is updated on review, as often as it takes till its good enough.
(And just to say, I have been on the other side, having a patch I wanted to be accepted at some project, and redoing it over and over again).
Please report the browser(s) that you used for testing.I've tried the mobile website with the new Firefox browser on Android and the desktop website with Firefox on Windows. Looks all okay for me.
Various Frameworks are available which saves your time on certain codebase.Would expect e.g. a list of frameworks (not sure what else might be intended by the creator). There are also too much newlines.
And more...
Here is a version-based feature history which has animations to show you many features in action: Wiki: New IDE features since
Maybe there can be at least some help testing.... (from everybody)
https://test.lazarus-ide.org/
https://test.lazarus-ide.org/index.php?page=features
vs
https://www.lazarus-ide.org/
https://www.lazarus-ide.org/index.php?page=features
Feature page:
- 3 feature boxes should have same height (on older browsers, they can have individual heights)
- 3 feature boxes, no massive empty space at bottom of highest box
- 3 feature boxes , align on page left/right
- 3 feature boxes , in mobile mode have vertical spacing/gap
Please report the browser(s) that you used for testing.