cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Antonio Gallardo" <agalla...@agsoftware.dnsalias.com>
Subject Re: Woody Rant
Date Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:20:47 GMT
Hi Joerg:

Please remember woody is not tight to Javascript in any way. The
wody-samples-styling.xsl is just an sample of what you can render the form
and nothing more. You can use it or build your own.

The current Javascript in the wody-samples-styling.xsl was introduced
because people often ask about how to include javascript inside the woody
rendering.

I think the problems with safari are more related to KHTML problems. KHTML
is still buggy. I used before Konqueror in KDE. Konqueror use KHTML too,
but many web pages was bad rendered in KHTML (including the cocoon pages).
I think this is not a cocoon problem.

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo

Joerg Heinicke dijo:
> It's maybe to late in the night to start a rant, but I will do it. The
> problem I have with Woody at the moment is, that it becomes more and
> more a client side styling and JavaScript library while it should focus
> on the server side form processing.
>
> Especially the JS stuff is ugly and horrible. If I see things like
>
> result +=
> "<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Calendar</TITLE>"+this.getStyles()+"</HEAD><BODY
> MARGINWIDTH=0 MARGINHEIGHT=0 TOPMARGIN=0 RIGHTMARGIN=0 LEFTMARGIN=0>\n";
>
> I wonder why you are doing/choosing/accepting such an approach. How
> should this work in future? It might work for many cases at the moment,
> but not all browsers are supported, Safari does even crash on such stuff
> [1]. You will get more and more bug reports in the future about any JS
> not working in a browser or a styling not looking correct like [2].
> Strict HTML 4 has little problems at the moment, XHTML does not work
> completely! And I do not wonder about this. Might all be little fixable
> bugs, but it's not worth the time IMO.
>
> IMO Woody should re-focus on form processing. Yes, we should provide a
> default view, but a simple one. If there must be used any JS as I see it
> for the calendar or the help popups then it should definitely be done
> the standard way (i.e. W3C DOM) and never using document.write(). We can
> show nice gimmicks, but not "everything that's possible". Who wants to
> maintain the recent code? Is the calendar styleable to get it in
> Corporate Identity? In contradiction to "all browser support" ("works
> with Netscape 4.x, 6.x, IE 5.x ...") new stuff like <label/> and
> <fieldset/> is used, that only works in recent browsers, while for JS
> you want to support NetScape 4.x.

Sometime it depends. If you develop for an Interanet environment, you can
set easily an standard.

>
> I also don't like "mattkruse-lib". I thought we have no code-ownership?
> Mentioning him like @author is absolutely ok, but not that conspicuous.
>
> I don't know if I forget any detail I wanted also to point out. Maybe I
> can add it in the (hopefully raising) discussion.
>
> Good night,
>
> Joerg
>
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=106941742522128&w=2
> [2] http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24900
>

Best Regards,

Antonio Gallardo

Mime
View raw message