On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 08:37, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Le 27 avr. 04, à 08:30, Sylvain Wallez a écrit : > > ...At the time where we discussed this, I proposed > > active/disabled/hidden, which is more traditional for GUI widgets: > > - active is the normal behaviour (what we have today) > > - disabled is like @type=output with the additional behaviour that the > > request parameter isn't considered (avoids hacking using forged > > requests) > > - hidden means that the widget doesn't output its SAX fragment, > > effectively hiding the value along with ignoring the request parameter > > as in disabled state.... > > Sorry to jump in suddenly, just my two cents on the terminology: I > think "editable / readonly / hidden" would express these widget states > more clearly. > But I don't want to interfere if you guys have been discussing this > already ;-)
Don't remember if it's already discussed. The names you suggest make sense for e.g. a field widget, but would then sound strange when applied to eg a repeater widget (an "editable" repeater?). -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
