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?).
Why not? If a repeater is a container for things, an "editable repeater" could be a container for "editable things" (IMHO).
-Bertrand
