On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 11:44, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Le 27 avr. 04, à 10:19, Bruno Dumon a écrit : > > > 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).
You could look at it that way, but I like enabled/disabled better (IMHO). Or if we'd drop the hidden state, we could simply have enabled="true/false". -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
