Pixologe -
I am a relative beginner at Wicket, but FWIW your ideas sound reasonable and
helpful.
I have a link with an image, and would like to display an alternate image if
the link is disabled. I understand that it should be a span element so that
clicking has no effect.
Can you, Igor, or
I got this working with the following code in the constructor of my Link
subclass:
http://gist.github.com/149344
...and removing the text from the HTML element so it wouldn't display
alongside the image.
I don't know if this is the best way, though.
It would probably make sense for me to
Dear Wicket devs,
I propose that by default a disabled link should rather (or also) be marked
using a behavior, instead of adding markup before and after.
A word in advance: I know that I can implement my own version of Link which
adds behavior in case of being disabled, and I know how to do it
Why not just use an attribute modifier?
pixologe wrote:
Dear Wicket devs,
I propose that by default a disabled link should rather (or also) be marked
using a behavior, instead of adding markup before and after.
A word in advance: I know that I can implement my own version of Link which
adds
Actually that is what I do. That's what I meant when I said implement own
version... Basically it extends AjaxFallbackLink overriding onBeforeRender
to add a Modifier dependent on the enabled property.
Just wanted to point out that this is the behavior I would have expected by
default, instead
disabled is more then just about the appearance, if something is
disabled the user should not be able to interact with it. for example,
security strategy can disable links the user does not have access to.
just adding class=disabled leaves the link clickable.
-igor
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:21
Of course, you are right. Sorry, what I wrote was not completely clear.
It can make sense to change the markup in order to disable a link.
It definitely makes sense to exchange [a] with [span], yes.
I was merely targeting at the appearance part: I think that adding markup
between this [span]
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:24 AM, pixologe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, you are right. Sorry, what I wrote was not completely clear.
It can make sense to change the markup in order to disable a link.
It definitely makes sense to exchange [a] with [span], yes.
I was merely targeting at
would you mind giving a hint?
igor.vaynberg wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:24 AM, pixologe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, you are right. Sorry, what I wrote was not completely clear.
It can make sense to change the markup in order to disable a link.
It definitely makes sense to
application.getmarkupsettings()
-igor
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:15 AM, pixologe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
would you mind giving a hint?
igor.vaynberg wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:24 AM, pixologe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, you are right. Sorry, what I wrote was not
setDefault*DisabledLink?
I know them and I am using them, as I already wrote.
Just considered it would be nice to have setDefaultDisabledLinkBehavior,
too. And that I think it would be more obvious to have this applied by
default.
Was just a proposal, never mind.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
Thanks for inspiration, igor. :)
Well, it would not help the mentioned problem of not being able to change
the style of an element depending on its child elements. However, as I
thought about this, I realized that I could do some global changes in the
weird templates and stylesheets I got, so CSS
12 matches
Mail list logo
