cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ugo Cei <>
Subject Re: Refactoring woody styling (was Re: Woody Rant)
Date Sat, 22 Nov 2003 17:30:57 GMT
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
> I don't agree with you here: you cannot seriously convince people to use 
> Woody if it doesn't provide the minimal "fancy features" that every 
> other form framework provides. You won't convince anybody with flat 
> inputs. We need tooltips, help popups, calendars, etc. But I also think 
> the current field-styling.xsl has reached a size where it must be split 
> into smaller units that everybody can assemble depending on their needs 
> (see below).

I'm with you here. Let's face it, what people are and will be using 
Woody for is mainly HTML forms, and there's no way you can make a decent 
form-based application without *lots* of DHTML code. For example, in my 
current project we have forms with hundreds of fields, and having tabs 
is a huge usability improvement. So much that for an early prototype we 
developed our own "tabs" script on top of JXForms, but as soon as I saw 
Woody's tabs I threw the prototype away and restarted from scratch.

If there are problems with the current implementation, let's fix them 
and provide a standards-compliant DHTML-based toolkit for those who need 
it (like me ;-) ). If we want to create the best web application 
development platform in the world, we cannot provide only a server-side 
solution and tell people to do their homework on the client side. This 
isn't going to sell.

Let's not just provide something for the lowest common denominator 
(a.k.a. Netscape 4.X). We could do a simple stylesheet for people who 
just want a plain registration form for their guestbook, but I'd 
question the appropriateness of using Woody for that, the 
FormValidatorAction would work much better.

	Just my 0.02€


View raw message