Tim wrote:
I am very uncomfortable with the idea of using Jmol.js, or any javascript in fact, solely for the purpose of writing 'static' html or css to a page. (dynamic code is an entirely different matter. altogether.)
I agree - separation of concerns is the technical term, I think. This was implicit in my comment:
Of course in the case of checkboxes it is good that you provide this, as it would be difficult for the user to assign a css style otherwise. However intervening html is clearly not the concern of the js (ok your simple <br> function is helpful to people who are not html savy) - the user can handle this himself.
But I would reiterate that as I see it the provision of css in the js *is* necessary to allow styling of any features generated by the javascript, and hence the concern of the javascript. These features would seem to be restricted buttons and checkboxes and perhaps the applet.
David -- _______________________________________________________________ David P.Leader, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Davidson Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK Phone: +44 41 330-5905 http://doolittle.ibls.gla.ac.uk/leader _______________________________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Jmol-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jmol-users
