On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:54:36 -0800, Martin Aspeli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Emphasis on "we ship". I would strongly -1 having this on for every
RichField in every product (i.e. do it at the AT level), which is how I
read it the first time. Doing it for Document, News Item and Event is
probabl
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Alexander Limi wrote:
I think it should be on for everything we ship that has a Rich Text
field. Then you can disable it if you want. Wikis are becoming
commonplace enough for people to expect that syntax to work, and it's
unlikely to have false positives unless you are d
Alexander Limi wrote:
I think it should be on for everything we ship that has a Rich Text
field. Then you can disable it if you want. Wikis are becoming
commonplace enough for people to expect that syntax to work, and it's
unlikely to have false positives unless you are doing something very
v
Hanno Schlichting wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
whit wrote:
does anyone have a good formlib example for a controlpanel that
*doesn't* edit a cmf tool?
plone.app.controlpanel has none? There are examples of formlib in
plone.app.contentrules and plone.app.portlets.portlets, and Roc
Martin Aspeli wrote:
> whit wrote:
>
>> does anyone have a good formlib example for a controlpanel that
>> *doesn't* edit a cmf tool?
>
> plone.app.controlpanel has none? There are examples of formlib in
> plone.app.contentrules and plone.app.portlets.portlets, and Rocky has a
> formlib tutorial.
Hi Whit,
this is pretty much the idea behind wicked.fieldevent[1]. txtfilter is
actually re-implemented as an example in wicked.fieldevent but it was
more efficient to register wicked directly as a subscriber to render
rather than put it into a txtfilter pipeline. If you're filters are
ortho
whit wrote:
... a lot of sensible stuff;
does anyone have a good formlib example for a controlpanel that
*doesn't* edit a cmf tool?
plone.app.controlpanel has none? There are examples of formlib in
plone.app.contentrules and plone.app.portlets.portlets, and Rocky has a
formlib tutorial. Oth
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:57:34 -0800, whit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raphael Ritz wrote:
What I would like to see in addition
(but I admit that it's too late to asked for that now) is a way
to offer the (power) user to specify the content type to be created
on add. Som
Alexander Limi wrote:
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:33:54 -0800, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level). Having a way to
turn the behaviour on/off and possibly change the synta
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 10:57:34 -0800, whit
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Raphael Ritz wrote:
What I would like to see in addition
(but I admit that it's too late to asked for that now) is a way
to offer the (power) user to specify the content type to be created
on add. Something like (in the conte
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 02:33:54 -0800, Martin Aspeli
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level). Having a way to
turn the behaviour on/off and possibly change the syntax choice makes
sense.
Interesting idea. The problem is possibly that people may not know the
full name of the content type (this is a vocabulary thing rather than
a free text thing), but certainly supporting this optionally would be
cool. I'd assume it wouldn't even be that hard to add (possibly at a
later stage).
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
[..]
I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level).
Agreed.
But in the long run it might very well make sense.
I like for instance the 'textfilter' approach and I could
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Whit,
You rock. :)
thanks! :)
Will skim through the code today, but I'm very optimistic that we
should merge during the weekend.
I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level).
TTW would be real
On Fri, 2007-05-01 at 04:10 -0600, whit wrote:
> what fields get the wicked treatment is current determined in zcml(the
> zcml marks the specific fields to enact behavior therefore has to happen
> act configuration time rather than via persistent component).
>
> This provides some flexibility,
Hi Raphael,
> I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
> the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level).
Agreed.
But in the long run it might very well make sense.
I like for instance the 'textfilter' approach and I could
imagine more functionality managed t
Martin Aspeli schrieb:
[..]
I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level).
Agreed.
But in the long run it might very well make sense.
I like for instance the 'textfilter' approach and I could
imagine more function
Whit,
You rock. :)
Will skim through the code today, but I'm very optimistic that we
should merge during the weekend.
I don't think having TTW configuration for which *fields* should get
the Wicked treatment makes much sense (too low level). Having a way to
turn the behaviour on/off and possibl
initially seems to be working using ATDocument unaltered(no special
fields, no special content).
I need to do a bit more testing, but wicked's tests run against ATCT
without issue(in 3 flavors: wicked for all AT text fields, just primary
textfield for newsitem, event and document and document
whit schrieb:
Hi Whit,
how far along is your student
so far that you can get a Product from the URL mentioned
below to install this into a Plone-2.5.x site.
And it works ;-)
and are they using kss to do this?
Yes.
very
interested, was looking at tackling this this week.
so maybe you
20 matches
Mail list logo
