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] element and its content is not very useful in most
cases. Of course, the functionality may come in handy if there is need, I
just think it should not necessarily be done by default.
And if there is a global setting for this, a global setting for a
defaultDisabledLinkBehavior would definitely be a good idea, too.
I would guess that most people are calling setDefaultAfterDisabledLink("")
and setDefaultBeforeDisabledLink("") to turn this behavior off, or use CSS
in order to have their text non-italic again, and add an AttributeModifier
instead. IMO it is just more obvious and more logical from the HTML template
and semantic point of view, even more when we are talking about [em].
However, if you do not share my opinion, I can stick to overriding the
default behavior, of course :)
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> 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 AM, pixologe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 behavior in case of being disabled, and I know how to do it - this
>> is
>> not a cry for help, just a proposal, how I think the Link component
>> should
>> behave to fit most common use cases. The current way simple does not feel
>> right.
>>
>> Why do I think so? When creating a template, most people tend to display
>> a
>> disabled status of an element by appending a css class to its tag, you
>> can
>> see class="disabled" very often, making colors gray or applying
>> transparency.
>> IMHO something like this should not be done by changing the DOM hierarchy
>> of
>> the element.
>>
>> Example: a Link with an arrow image (CSS background) - quite common. It
>> is
>> not (at least as easy as it should be) possible to have another image for
>> a
>> disabled link with this behavior, since there is nothing like an
>> if-element-has-child-element-selector in CSS.
>>
>> Besides (I know it is configurable, but...) : I am not sure why one would
>> want to [em]phasize something that's disabled ;-)
>>
>> I would love to see a defaultDisabledLinkBehavior property in future
>> versions, this would make it a lot easier to style disabled links...
>>
>> Cheers + best regards :)
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/Markup-for-disabled-Link---Proposal-%28add-behavior-instead-of-markup%29-tp19570584p19570584.html
>> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Markup-for-disabled-Link---Proposal-%28add-behavior-instead-of-markup%29-tp19570584p19575441.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
