cocoon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Claudius Spellmann <claudius.spellm...@juwimm.com>
Subject Re: Widget states: let's do it (was Re: CForms making widgets invisible)
Date Thu, 23 Sep 2004 08:49:19 GMT
Sylvain Wallez schrieb:

> 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
>
Ok sounds good to me

What would happen when an invisible field doesn't pass validation and 
the enduser of a running system doesn't know that he's made a mistake 
entering data.
The point I'm trying to make is that informing endusers about validation 
errors could be a tricky issue becausae a user can't enter data into 
fields he cannot see and would be a burden for system developers because 
they have to test forms throughly to avoid confusion

Claudius.

Mime
View raw message