Iuri, just provide a diff from acs-subsite on HEAD and the /www directiory. Open a ticket in the bug tracker, provide the diff as a patch. Post the link here. I will test it and report back. Dave can then incorporate this into his work (or not). If that is too much work for you, just send me the changed files via E-Mail 😊. I think Don is right, do not commit to HEAD as we do not have a "playground" which lets us revert changes anymore. Sorry for me making this suggestion which would have saved us some work.
Don, with regards to openness I would have expected something like https://openacs.org/xowiki/templatehead. Furthermore, before it is incorporated it definitely needs a TIP or am I mistaken there? Same should apply to any changes with the default master and new structures how they are split up, when they are joined, which CSS are going to stay, where they are going to stay, what the logic is behind all this and so on and so forth.
Knowing how many sites broke on upgrade to 5.3.1 I am really weary about any changes being done without proper explanation what needs to be done. And I have yet not seen a page which describes what needs to happen to keep your 5.3.0 design when doing the upgrade. But maybe its just me and anyone I work with who ran into that issue and it works fine for everybody else, no explanations required.
I can only say that I recommend to be weary of OpenACS upgrades of the master templates at the moment and keep them in your own directory as described at http://cognovis.de/developer/openacs-customizations. That at least saved me from manually fixing 4 sites after running into the upgrade problem, broken styles and so on on the old ones. Guess why I made sure you can have the "standard.adp" form template reside in a different location than acs-templating/resources/forms/ in the first place? Because it changed so much that none of the clients I had where happy, but where not willing to pay the CSS guy to do the ammendments which previously where done in the tables in the divs now.
I am not saying this was a wrong move (going to DIVs and so on), but for a minor release this was a heavy move. And without proper documentation on "how can I keep my customizations when I upgrade to 5.3.1" it is hard on people.