Hello,
My name is Germán Bustos, I’m from Colombia, sorry to write in Englis, I can’t write French.
I’ve been using and promoting SPIP for at least seven years, In this lapse I’ve developed at least 50 SPIP sites, I was the first webmaster to make sites with SPIP in Colombia. I’m not a programmer, I just know basic PHP, but I’ve helped with some translations and have been an active member of Spanish speaking SPIP community. I’ve just subscribe to this list just to complain for what I think are serious failures in the way SPIP is developing in last versions.
First problem
I was trying to put an image in a site with SPIP 2.1.2. I designed that site so the hovering logo of the section is a 950x32px banner (just 15KB) that is used to link the section from front page, is not the canonichal way to use the hovering logo in this way, but it’s often useful. The system told me “Logos must be less than 380 × 380 pixels (this file is 950 × 32 pixels)”. Oh surprise! SPIP programmers got serious, now hovering logo can be only use to hover the logo. I think I must to change about 30 loops (boucles) in different sites, but well, I accept in order to use things for what they are suppose to be…
So I decide that the banner upload the image, as an attachment file to the section, again the system denies me the chance: “Logos must be less than 450 × 500 pixels (this file is 950 × 32 pixels).” I’m sorry but I see no reason why the limits of the attachments should be 450px.
I myself have complained of problems happening when mounting a large image, I understand that there should be some criteria to limit the size, but this makes no sense. For a photo gallery with Thickbox I usually recommend my costumers to upload the photos in 640 x 480 px and have not had problems with files, and the galleries are very nice, even when they have hundred photos.
Another use with file attachments in the sections is to provide banners, I have several sites where the header banners are placed randomly using a set of files that are uploaded as attachment to a sections. That let the user change the site without dependence form the webmaster and thus generate many options of use. I think that one of the best things about SPIP is that you can set up the site so that the user can manage it as he/she wants.
I think the decision to put a restriction based on the dimensions of the image is stupid, to say the least. This restriction seriously affects the choices we make webmasters highly customized sites. If you wanted a CMS that are design options are closed, and fonal users can’t change it, would put something like Joomla in my sites, it is assumed that SPIP is a system that gives a lot of freedom, Limit file size but not the dimensions. Who do I have to complain?
Second problem
In another site the costumer decided to change a little banner (240x53 px) with a animated GIF but when he uploaded the image it was animated no more, when I checked the image I found out that it was changed to a PNG. I know, animated gifs are a little bit of fashioned, but are still an option to Flash and complex Javascript animations. What’s the problem with animated gifs?
For your mistake that put the sites in blank, I’ve to change about 30 installations of SPIP, now I have a lot of other problems because sites don’t work in the way they were designed.
But more that a personal problem for me, I think this changes mean a serious twist in SPIP philosophy, SPIP is no more a framework a platform in which you can create a site as you want, now it’s a simple blogging CMS in where you can change all CSS but there is no sense to create own buocles if in future versions the features which support them would be removed,
German