We need to remove :
dojo.require("struts.widget.DatePicker");
dojo.require("struts.widget.TimePicker");
from dojoRequire.js
musachy
Don Brown wrote:
I'm not following - the simple theme's implementation of the head tag
loads Dojo. This will definitely change when we move Dojo out of
core, a
I'm not following - the simple theme's implementation of the head tag
loads Dojo. This will definitely change when we move Dojo out of core,
as IMO, the simple theme shouldn't require any Javascript unless you use
attributes that use it.
Don
Ted Husted wrote:
I expect that we would address
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 tag, and the date picker n
They needed the 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 remove
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 on
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
