I expect that we would address this in WW-1607, but if all the head tag does is load dojo, then should it be implemented by the simple theme?
* http://cwiki.apache.org/WW/simple-head-template.html -Ted. On 1/8/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They needed the <s:head> tag, and the date picker needed to have its default date format parsing pattern changed to the RFC 3399 one. Don Ted Husted wrote: > I brought the example pages over, but they do not seem to work now. > > -Ted. > > On 1/7/07, Don Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, because I removed the tags they were showcasing - the datepicker >> and timepicker. Those two tags didn't have unit tests, were broken, and >> missing pieces. I think we only need one date/time picking tag, and one >> that most closely mirrors what WebWork 2 had is the best choice. The >> remaining tag, datetimepicker, does what we need and is showcased in the >> ui tags, a better place than the ajax pages since it has nothing to do >> with ajax. >> >> Don >> >> Ted Husted wrote: >> > Did we mean to remove the Showcase pages for the Datepicker and >> > Timepicker. >> > >> > The pages for dropdowndatepicker and dropdowntimepicker seem to have >> > been deleted, but I don't see replacements. >> > >> > -Ted. >> > >> > On 1/7/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Author: mrdon >> >> Date: Sun Jan 7 14:26:23 2007 >> >> New Revision: 493867 >> >> >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=493867 >> >> Log: >> >> Renamed DropDownDateTimePicker to DateTimePicker and got rid of >> >> DatePicker and >> >> TimePicker, better aligning Struts 2 with WebWork 2 offerings. >> >> WW-1596
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
