In XSS they are 'named' styles:
for example:
<style name="AFStartTextAlign">
<property name="text-align">left</property>
</style>
if .AFStartTextAlign:alias
in css.
Look in base-desktop.xss for other examples, and how you include this
in other styles.
- Jenane
Simon Lessard wrote:
Hello all and principally Jeanne,
Is there a way to use icon aliases with XSS and/or XhtmlSkin? I wanted
to create the following two aliases to enable easy use of tr:icon:
- .AFBusyIcon:alias
- .AFReadyIcon:alias
And have the following two selectors reference them:
- af|statusIndicator::busy-icon
- af|statusIndicator::ready-icon
Is that even possible or must I define both and point on the same
source. The latter would be quite bad since users overriding the
aliases will probably want to impact both.
Regards,
~ Simon
On 9/21/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Ok
I think I'll go with facet or icon since it seems to be the most
accepted scenario. I'm going to comment the component accordingly.
On 9/20/07,
Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm
happier if we don't add any attributes... We definitely
want default behavior where, if nothing is specified,
the icons get shown.
-- Adam
On 9/20/07, Jeanne Waldman <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The other api I like is one you mentioned was not backwards
compatible, and
> that is to have them put the icon in the facet if they want an
icon.
>
> I agree that the below API is busy, but to me it is clear. No
guessing what
> the logic is.
>
>
> Simon Lessard wrote:
> Hello Jeanne,
>
> Something alike was proposed at first, but again the most common
usage
> kicks in. Such attributes imply, for GMail like behavior:
>
> <tr:statusIndicator hideReadyIcon="true"
hideBusyIcon="true">
> <f:facet name="busy">
> <tr:outputText value="Loading..."/>
> </f:facet>
> </tr:statusIndicator>
>
> It's a bit longer, but it's easily livable with I guess.
>
>
> On 9/20/07, Jeanne Waldman <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > How about hideReadyIcon = "true/false"
> > hideBusyIcon = "true/false".
> >
> > It's explicit and the user doesn't have to guess at the logic
we are using
> -- or read the doc.
> >
> > - Jeanne
> >
> >
> > Simon Lessard wrote:
> > Hello Adam,
> >
> >
> > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I think it should be as simple as for each of "busy" and
> > > "ready", render the facet if it's present, the icon if
it's not.
> >
> >
> > The only issue with that behavior is most common usage. I
think the most
> common usage with facets is going to be a "busy" facet and no
"ready" (to
> mimic GMail behavior for example). Personally, that's the way I
would use
> it. If that's really the most common case, then it should be "as
soon as a
> facet is specified, rendered or not, no icon will be rendered".
But, if we
> think the most common case is going to be with both facets, then I
agree
> with your suggestion.
> >
> > ~ Simon
> >
> >
> > > -- Adam
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hmm not as simple as I though. Before pushing a
patch let decide on
> the
> > > > behavior for every use case:
> > > >
> > > > Both facets are specified and rendered --> Don't
render any icon
> > > > Both facets are specified but only one is rendered
--> ?
> > > > Both facets are specified but neither are rendered
--> ?
> > > > Only one facet is specified and rendered -->
Don't render any icon or
> > > > render the icon of the missing facet?
> > > > Only one facet is specified but not rendered -->
?
> > > > No facet is specified --> Render both icons
> > > >
> > > > ~ Simon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > Or put tr:icon in the facet. Yeah, that sound
good too.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > that sounds like the best solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > IMO, if we have a facet, we don't
render the icon. No need
> > > > > > > for an attribute at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Anyone that desperately needs both
the facet and the icon
> > > > > > > can render two statusIndicators.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -- Adam
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I
forgot to add skin documentation. I'll
> do
> > > > that right
> > > > > > > > > away.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I would also like to add a
new attribute to skip the icon
> > > > rendering. If it
> > > > > > > > > hasn't been of backward
compatibility, I would have simply
> removed
> > > > them
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I added a demo usage of the
facet's, I was thinking, that it
> > > > shouldn't
> > > > > > > > render the "default" icon,
> > > > > > > > glad you pointed it out now.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > since it's easily doable
with a combination of facet and
> tr:icon,
> > > > but since
> > > > > > > > > we had a release with the
statusIndicator already, that's
> out of
> > > > question.
> > > > > > > > > So, what I need now is a
decent attribute name. What do you
> think
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > "renderIcon" or
"renderFacetsOnly"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I tend to like
renderFacetsOnly, because that what you added
> where
> > > > facets.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Perhaps, we can change that
soon, that when facet's are
> specified,
> > > > we
> > > > > > > > don't render the "default"
icon.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Matthias
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ~ Simon
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > > > blog:
>
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > further stuff:
> > > > > > blog:
>
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
|
