+1 on concatenating together all content sections that match the current view, but ONLY IF it is added to the spec officially. Since multiple content sections are such a new part of the spec anyway, I suspect that getting this change made now is still possible, but Shindig isn't the only stakeholder in the gadget spec.
On Jan 30, 2008 7:48 PM, John Hjelmstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Great question. Your expectation contains nearly the semantics I'd suggest > and have implemented with one modification: the DEFAULT doesn't show up > when > view="bar". <Content> without view, or with view="" is equivalent to > view="default". This facilitates shared code between the default content > block and other views. Without it, the default block would have to stand > on > its own, while at the same time always being included in the alternate > specified views. > > For a while I was a proponent of precluding repeated view definitions > altogether, but this mechanism is an elegant way to accommodate shared > code > IMO. Thoughts? > > John > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Arne Roomann-Kurrik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > What happens when multiple content sections specify the same view? > > > > <Content view="bar"> BAR </Content> > > <Content view="foo, bar"> FOO+BAR </Content> > > <Content> DEFAULT </Content> > > > > If the current view is "bar", what is the expected result? (I would > > expect > > "BAR FOO+BAR DEFAULT", but wanted to get clarification) > > >
