-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Clarify issue with how layouts work when using theme.json #392
Comments
Thanks for opening this tracking issue @justintadlock, it'd be great to document many parts of the current state of the Layout support in addition to the content and wide sizes. I've started a draft PR over in WordPress/gutenberg#42619 that is less about the specifics of
Let me know if I can help / happy to help review any documentation updates! |
Heads up @kafleg @carolinan @TeBenachi - the "themes" label was applied to this issue. |
@andrewserong - I agree that it needs to be documented in both places. I think this page of the Theme Handbook mostly needs to note the issue, but we need a deeper explanation of the features elsewhere. I'm also working on a tutorial around layouts and alignments with the hope that it offers more clarity around how all of this works. |
The following is a first pass at an update for Layout section of the I'm trying to keep it relatively short (and we can go shorter) with links to relevant information for theme authors who want to dig into it more. Let me know what you think or please make any adjustments. LayoutThe layout setting enables wide and full-width blocks. {
"version": 2,
"settings": {
"layout": {
"contentSize": "840px",
"wideSize": "1100px"
}
}
} Note that the alignment mechanism leveraged here is different than what was previously enabled via align-wide theme support. If gradually adopting FSE features within a classic theme, some user's layouts may change when upgrading the theme. Because classic themes managed their own content width, the editor always displayed wide/full controls for blocks that supported them. However, the logic for wide/full handling changes when a theme has a There is an open ticket with a full description of the issue and a pull request for a new default layout type to address this for users. |
Updated text after cross-check with @kafleg. https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/advanced-topics/theme-json/#layout |
Thank you Justin :) |
Issue Description
Wide/full alignments and layouts work differently when using a theme with a
theme.json
vs. one without. A full description of this issue is outlined in an ongoing Gutenberg ticket. A good breakdown of it is in this comment.The Theme Handbook should note this issue because it is a blocker for gradual adoption of FSE features, breaking the user experience when theme authors update to adopt
theme.json
.URL of the Page with the Issue
https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/advanced-topics/theme-json/
Section of Page with the issue
I think the best location for addressing this is in the Layout section of
theme.json
page: https://developer.wordpress.org/themes/advanced-topics/theme-json/#layoutWhy is this a problem?
It is a back-compatibility issue for end-users. There is currently a pull request for fixing this. However, even if this fix lands in WordPress 6.1, theme authors need to be aware that it's an issue for at least WordPress 5.9 and 6.0. It is a definite blocker for gradual FSE adoption.
Suggested Fix
We need two or three paragraphs that succinctly describes the issue and what theme authors should expect if updating their classic theme to use
theme.json
.There is already a vague note in the Layout section of the page that seems to refer to this issue (this bit needs to be extended for clarity):
It may also be worth noting that user expectations may not be met when switching from a classic theme to a block theme where wide/full layouts work differently. I'm not sure if this part would best fit into the theme dev handbook since this would be more of a user-experience thing.
I am ready to work on this document update.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: