...
[14:21:33 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: yes, that would be easy
[14:22:23 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> Bosmon: the question would be is that what we'd want?
[14:22:46 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> I think it has some things in its favour
[14:22:58 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> i just really mean the name
[14:23:03 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> For example, it helps to bridge the gaps between the worlds of users #1 and #2
[14:23:06 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> yes
[14:23:07 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> i like the 1 less step
[14:23:13 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> It is a name that can be "naturally achieved"
[14:23:21 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> And so it is clearer to users how they might naturally achieve other things
[14:23:34 CDT(-0500)] <Bosmon> As well as giving them easy access to all the other grade names that are constructed in the same step
[14:24:49 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> fluid-everyone: are you okay with fluid.uiOptions.prefsEditor as the packaged component for the preference framework
[14:25:02 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> yup, I'm fine with it
[14:25:12 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> and other prefsEditors will likely mirror this approach?
[14:25:20 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> pga.explorationTool.prefsEditor?
[14:25:26 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> or whatever
[14:25:56 CDT(-0500)] <anastasiac> seems ok to me
[14:26:03 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> okay.. i'll just reopen FLUID-5161 and we can make the necessary changes
[14:26:37 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli: did you want to make these changes or would you like me too.. i don't mind doing it.. up to you
[14:27:49 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> Justin_o: go ahead to make changes since you seem to be more clear about all these 
[14:28:41 CDT(-0500)] <Justin_o> cindyli: okay
[14:29:51 CDT(-0500)] <cindyli> thanks, Justin_o
[14:41:17 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> colinclark: in terms of your earlier question, oercommons is mostly following the tutorial. There is one listener being added programatically in the green site, but it should be a simple fix
[14:41:28 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> ok
[14:41:31 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> well, there you go
[14:41:39 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> so the CSS issue isn't a trivial one
[14:41:50 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Have the stylesheets changed much amidst all this refactoring, Justin_o?
[14:41:54 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> nope, it's not
[14:41:59 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> aside from the names
[14:46:26 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> michelled: do you think it would be crazy to ship two copies of the UIO stylesheets?
[14:46:42 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Or doubled definitions of everything, half of them marked deprecated?
[14:52:01 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I'd rather see two copies of the stylesheets instead of double definitions
[14:52:25 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> I imagine we could modify the css generation code to generate the two copies
[14:52:49 CDT(-0500)] <michelled> or maybe we should make another build target?
[14:53:20 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Either one would be fine
[14:53:55 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> Despite my typically aggressive "I want to break backwards compatibility" stance these days, I think we should plan for something before we cut 1.5
[14:54:16 CDT(-0500)] <colinclark> I worry that the "accessibility is too hard" set will just see this as further fuel for the fire