Ugo Cei dijo: > 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.
+1 > 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. +1 > 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. To be honest I love so much woody that even my simple login form use it. The usability matters in my case. Best Regards, Antonio Gallardo
