cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sylvain Wallez <sylv...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Widget states: let's do it (was Re: CForms making widgets invisible)
Date Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:19:57 GMT
Claudius Spellmann wrote:

> Sylvain Wallez schrieb:


<snip/>

>> Mmmh... we could say that validation is not performed on 
>> disabled/invisible widgets and their children. But this may cause 
>> some forms to appear falsely valid, as non-enabled widgets may be 
>> required and/or have validators that use values of other widgets.
>>
>> So I would better go the safer way, which is to validate *all* widgets.
>>
>> As for wizards, we could have an additional method on the JS Form 
>> object that, instead of handling the whole form at once, may handle 
>> it's first-level children which may be widget groups for each page of 
>> the wizard.
>>
>> Sylvain
>>
> Ok if a widget is set invisible it is not rendered by cocoon but that 
> doesn't mean that the widget is not existing in the widget container 
> so if a widget is required and not visible but still exists in the 
> container does mean it could be validated  ????


Yes.

> What about following widget states: enabled (default) < disabled < 
> hidden < invisible
> The difference between hidden and invisible would be that hidden is 
> still rendered but with an hidden attribute in the declaration and 
> would go through the validation process. Invisible on the other side 
> could be taken of the form completly and while a widget is in an 
> invisible state all validation would be switched off. This way every 
> user could decide wether they want to use validation or not and the 
> output still  would look the same.


Interesting thoughts. But as we saw previously, "hidden" has an implied 
meaning because of its use for <input type="hidden"> in HTML and I'd 
like to avoid it.

What you're describing here is a widget state that is even less visible 
than invisible, since no validation occurs. What about a "phantom" 
state, where the widget exists but isn't validated?

BTW, overnight I finally felt that "enabled" being the negation of 
"disabled" can lead to confusion as when we have to talk about a widget 
that's not in "enable" state, the natural word that comes is "disabled" 
which is only one of the particular possible states for a non-enabled 
widget. So in the end, I think "active" is better than "enabled".

That would lead to:
  active (default) < disabled < invisible < phantom

Thoughts?

Sylvain

-- 
Sylvain Wallez                                  Anyware Technologies
http://www.apache.org/~sylvain           http://www.anyware-tech.com
{ XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects }


Mime
View raw message