...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?).
I also thought of readonly first, but it makes indeed no sense for the most widgets. I had a look at the XUL elements (http://xulplanet.mozdev.org/references/elemref/) and they all have an @disabled (checkbox, menu, radio, textbox, etc.). Textbox provides additionally @readonly, menulist @editable.
I agree to Bruno's proposal: enabled (= default behaviour), disabled, hidden.
Joerg
