Hello Jeanne, I'm going to try, but I thought it would be different for icon, because all icon aliases are defined in XhtmlSkin and not in base-desktop.xss.
On 9/21/07, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
