Subject: [Tools-discuss] agenda.html area colours

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 11:24:52 -0500

Is there some reason that the agenda.html template has all of the
colou^Hrs as inline style sheet rather than having this in the ietf.css?

Is there some interest in making the colours part of the database?

-- 
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [ 
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network architect  [ 
]     [email-masked]  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:49:36 -0600

> colou^Hrs as inline style sheet rather than having this in the ietf.css?

Assuming you're talking about the datatracker agenda (rather than the 
tools tracker), it's mostly because I only do what I can get 
accomplished in a one-day coding session three times a year, and 
sometimes that involves shortcuts to just get things done quickly.

> Is there some interest in making the colours part of the database?

You seem to have some -- come to the sprint and do it!

/a

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:55:00 -0500

>>>>> "Adam" == Adam Roach <[email-masked]> writes:
    >> colou^Hrs as inline style sheet rather than having this in the

    Adam> Assuming you're talking about the datatracker agenda (rather
    Adam> than the tools tracker), it's mostly because I only do what I
    Adam> can get accomplished in a one-day coding session three times a
    Adam> year, and sometimes that involves shortcuts to just get things
    Adam> done quickly.

It's a fair enough reason, and I suspected as much.

    >> Is there some interest in making the colours part of the

    Adam> You seem to have some -- come to the sprint and do it!

I actually am working on the automatic agenda editing stuff.  I want to
match the colours.

I've moved them into code for now, generating the inline CSS for
agenda.html as before.  It could be added to group_group as a new field
if we wanted even more flexability, but I didn't do that, because I'm
not convinced we need it.  (Maybe the IESG will reorg itself this though...)

I will be at the sprint.