Right now, the title (for example) says:

: Dada Mail :: Sign up for a list ::

Are those colons and period currently something that can be at least hidden if you want to fantastically change the layout/design of the Dada Mail screens ala Zen Garden? They would seem to be a weird hindrance

Agreed on the "hindrance" concern Hmm

Just off the top of my head, adding them in with CSS2 selectors:

Logo:before {

content: " : "; }

Title:before {

content: ":: "; }

Title:after {

content: " ::"; }

works great for modern browsers, but then the IE-6-and-under crowd won't want to play with us

Finding a gracefully degradable solution here might be a bit tricky

Of course, there's always the "boatload of extra template markup" solution (i e : three different:

wrappers), but no We're trying to avoid such CSS-customization-specific template bloat, right?

I'll see what else I can think of Anyone have any brainstorming ideas to throw into the mix?

Some styles were not controllable from the external stylesheet

Well, that solves the problem I have with applying an already existing HTML/css design to the Dada Mail screens without having Dada Mail's body styles mucking up the initial design

Really?! That's a pleasant surprise

When you first asked about that "intermingling" of Dada Mail with another page design I started toying about with the most robust solution, which is to move all the styling out of the so Dada Mail can be embedded into not just mojo skazat com , but into any other page with its own rules, without conflicts or unwanted inheritances either way

I believe this is fully do-able, but my initial attempts have shown that it's a bit tricky in spots, and that it would seriously rearrange, add to, and otherwise complicate the default stylesheet in ways I'm not entirely comfortable with

Do you think there would be significant use of this sort of feature, if it were added? If so, the best plan will likely be to build an alternative stylesheet for it, so default_css css stays clean(er) and simple(r) for the majority

Oh, and of course it wouldn't end up looking as fancy-pants cool as a Zen Garden-like layout-overhaul alternative stylesheet, mind you, so maybe we should do one of those first :-)

Beyond the above two (possible) new features for version 2 11, there's one other CSS-related project I'd like to take on and since we're already talking about post-2 10 plans, I thought I'd get your initial feedback on it

I want a print-friendly archived message template I want it I want it I want it!

There are two ways of doing this One is to include a print stylesheet for the existing archive pages that would remove the navigation, measure everything in points, change the link colors, and so on (e g : visit my own http://runninghorse ca and select "print preview") And the other is to create the print-friendly version as a separate template, available from each archive page via a "print version" link (e g : visit http://www cnn com or pretty much any other news site around)

Currently, I'm tending towards the separate template The main reason is that stylesheet-only solutions are invisible to visitors unless they happen to select "print preview" on a whim, or unless you tell them it exists somewhere on the page itself (which usually takes more space than a "print version" link would anyhow) And a secondary reason is that if a template is purpose-built for print output, it will then be easier for end-users to customize, and will also allow greater flexibility in its creation (An example of the latter: imagine a line at the bottom of the printed page reading, "Permanent Message Location: " To include that in a separate template is straightforward, but to add it into the pre-existing archive screens means we have to first put it in and then make sure to hide it from the screen output More than a few "extras" like this, and things start to get more & more tangled )

Is anyone violently opposed to a "print version" link -- optional, if we wish to make it so via the control panel -- appearing on the archived message pages and opening up in a new window?

Any other thoughts on the archived message print-version concept?