cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marc Portier <...@outerthought.org>
Subject Re: [Woody] - <wd:hotkey> status?
Date Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:50:41 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:

> Marc Portier wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Sylvain Wallez wrote:
>>
>>> Antonio Gallardo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi:
>>>>
>>>> Reviewing old mails, I found we agreed to add to the woody template
>>>> specification an initial tag that was called <wd:hotkey>
>>>>
>>>> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=105848333001636&w=2
>>>>
>>>> Please, follow the above thread.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if I miss something, but I don't see it anymore.
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>
>>> We currently only have <wd:hint> and <wd:help> implemented in the

>>> styling. Adding the hotkey is still to be done.
>>>
>>> Now what about naming it <wd:accesskey> or <wd:access-key>? This

>>> would be more similar to the corresponding "acceskey" HTML attribute.
>>>
>>> I also noticed that, although the HTML spec recommends to underline 
>>> the accesskey in the label, no browser seems to do it. Any 
>>> hint/advice on this?
>>
>>
>>
>> first idea is to have:
>>
>> <wd:label><wd:accesskey>N</wd:accesskey>ame:</wd:label>
>>
>> of course we will need some fit with the i18n support
>>
>> suggestion, just keep the current:
>> <wd:label>
>> <i18n:text key="prompt.name" />
>> </wd:label>
>>
>> where
>> <message key="prompt.name"><wi:accesskey>N</wi:accesskey>ame:</message>
> 
> 
> 
> I love this, as it avoids separate definitions of label and key in the 
> i18n catalogue.
> 

yep

>> ? hm, I don't actually don't know if current i18n transformer is 
>> supporting mixed content-model messages, anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it does (IIRC, this is new in 2.1).
> 

cool, we might consider the introduction of an example on this somewhere 
(couldn't easily find anything on website or wiki)

>> also this approach would require us however to make some upfront 
>> suggestions on the order of template and i18n transformer? (and thus 
>> reflect that in the namespace-prefix in the message)
> 
> As i18n must come after the woodytransformer, <wi:accesskey> makes 
> sense. But when the label is in the definition, we'll have a 
> <wi:accesskey> inside a <wd:label>...
> 
> I suggested some time ago to have <wi:label> in the form definition 
> since, its just "transported" by the widget to produce the instance (no 
> processing occurs on it), but I'm not sure that mixing prefixes is so 
> intuitive. OTOH, "wi:" clearly indicates that it's an optional and 
> view-only data.
> 

well, I do think it does make sense to go for wi:label

Thinking about it in some abstract terms, we could look at the wd-file 
as some kind of a class definition, with all of its declared fields as 
some kind of member-variable declarations

however, this 'label' and 'accesskey' stuff rather takes up the 
equivalent role of 'static' variables that are shared across all 
instances of the same class.

hm, just a way to look at it I guess?


<snip topic="more agreement on wi:accesskey inside wi:label"/>

-marc=
-- 
Marc Portier                            http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at              http://radio.weblogs.com/0116284/
mpo@outerthought.org                              mpo@apache.org


Mime
View raw message