Well, I will volunteer to put in the new syntax, we should file an enhancement request and Jim can maybe decide if/when to do this.
On 1/19/07, Max Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes yes yes!!! This is something we've wanted to do for a long time. Making this change without preserving backward compatibility will have a lot of fallout, so we should deprecate the old format (and maybe warn) if we do this. -Max P T Withington wrote: > I'd rather change lz(request)t(ype) to lzw(rapper). Better yet, we've > discussed a number of times trying to unify the lz? options, perhaps by > saying something like: > > ?lzoptions=runtime:dhtml,wrapper:html,debug:false,proxy:true > > [I don't know for a fact that that is or is not a legitimate URI query > parameter syntax, or if : and , already have reserved meanings in query > parameters. Presumably we could come up with something along those lines.] > > Similarly, the litany of server requests that are lumped into the ?lzt > argument should be split out as something like: > > ?lzoptions=request:clear-cache > > etc. > > The biggest benefit is that we would remove a lot of pollution from the > query arg space (especially the non-lz-prefixed args like profile, > proxy, etc.). > > If `runtime:dhtml,wrapper:html` is still confusing, I suggest we change > dhtml to ajax. > > On 2007-01-18, at 20:36 EST, David Temkin wrote: > >> With the addition of lzr=dhtml, lzt=html has become pretty confusing. >> >> Any thoughts on deprecating lzt=html in favor of lzt=wrapper, or >> something along those lines? >> >> > -- Regards, Max Carlson OpenLaszlo.org
-- Henry Minsky Software Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED]
