On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 07:54:42AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote: > I don't thing the partial ones work - we should just make then > unchecked in export if there is nothing better. the grey dos not > convey the right information.
I agree, but couldn't think of any other way. There are 3 other unicode options: 1. A box with an X (☒ U+2612 BALLOT BOX WITH X) 2. A bare (unboxed) X (✗ U+2717 BALLOT X) 3 A bare checkmark (✓ U+2713 CHECK MARK) I also found this character: U+237B ⍻ not check mark If you think one of those would work we could use it instead. > My vote: > - Unicode characters as default > - Both active and inactive checkboxes as option for people who want > them, via a customize variable. > - Partial checkboxes should be shown as unchecked. I will implement the replacement of the ascii characters with the unicode and the look at the html checkbox options. FWIW, there are other issues w/ the active version besides the changes not being saved -- If you are using hierarchical list or rollups indicators ([x/y], [x%]), they will not be updated w/o some javascript. rick > > > On 29.11.2013, at 17:11, Rick Frankel <r...@rickster.com> wrote: > > > On 2013-11-28 16:58, Matt Price wrote: > >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Sebastien Vauban > >> <sva-n...@mygooglest.com> wrote: > >> Achim Gratz wrote: > >> Rick Frankel writes: > >> For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked="checked"'. I've > >> done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input elements > >> are allowed outside of forms, but i would need to double > >> check... Also, the fallback to "[-]" for the partially checked state > >> is a bit inconsistent, perhaps changing background color or other > >> attributre of the checkbox would be better. > >> I'd much prefer if you'd be using character entities for that since you > >> can't do any input on the HTML anyway (WHITE MEDIUM SQUARE, SQUARE WITH > >> LOWER RIGHT DIAGONAL BLACK and BLACK MEDIUM SQUARE look like good > >> candidates). That probably makes it UTF-8 only since I don't think > >> these symbols are defined for plain (X)HTML, so for other encodings > >> things should probably stay as they are. > >> FWIW, here's what I do for the HTML export: > >> In JS: > >> #+begin_src js > >> $(function () { > >> $('li > code:contains("[X]")') > >> .parent() > >> .addClass('checked') > >> .end() > >> .remove(); > >> $('li > code:contains("[-]")') > >> .parent() > >> .addClass('halfchecked') > >> .end() > >> .remove(); > >> $('li > code:contains("[ ]")') > >> .parent() > >> .addClass('unchecked') > >> .end() > >> .remove(); > >> }); > >> #+end_src > >> In CSS: > >> #+begin_src css > >> li.checked { > >> list-style-image: url('../images/checked.png'); > >> } > >> li.halfchecked { > >> list-style-image: url('../images/halfchecked.png'); > >> } > >> li.unchecked { > >> list-style-image: url('../images/unchecked.png'); > >> } > >> #+end_src > >> with 3 nice pictures of green V, red X, and blue || (line "pause" on > >> recorders). > >> so, I don't know if I'm the only one here who feels this way, but I > >> would like to be able to export to an HTML file with ACTUAL HECKBOXES > >> that I cna check off, say on a phone, when I put the milk in the > >> shopping art, or pack the swim goggles in the vacation bag, or > >> whatever. Maybe though I should be thinking in terms of some other > >> export application, remember the milk or something. Am I describing a > >> different use case than other users here, perhaps? > > > > My 3 cents: > > > > I don't see that active checkboxes would help since i don't see a use > > case where you can save the html back with the modified input. The > > github usecase mentioned in anothre thread requires a bunch of > > javascript to work (and write-out the modified file). > > > > While Sebastien's solution is visually appealing, i don't think > > requiring image assets is viable for the core exporter (note that it > > could be done w/o javascript, another dependency i would like to > > avoid). > > > > I've attached an html file which shows the various possible options. My > > comments: > > > > 1. As mentioned above, I don't see active checkboxes as useful > > since the modified state is transient. > > 2. I don't really like the disabled checkboxes visually. > > 3. Either of the other two approaches (the list item style, which > > parallels Sebastien's approach w/o using images) works for me. > > Visually I like the list item style solution, but doesn't really > > make the intent clear. > > > > So, my vote is to change the exporter to use the BALLOT BOX and BALLOT > > BOX WITH CHECK instead of the ascii character currently used and > > indicate partially checked boxes ([-]) with greyed text. > > > > Opinions? > > > > rick > > > > <checkbox.html>