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/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
