From: Edmund L. <el...@in...> - 2003-03-30 03:38:56
|
Gee, I forgot that this mailing list exists... should have just posted the following here, rather than the Webware list a few days ago... I've hacked MultiCheckboxField and CheckboxField to properly support the static and hide options. Static multi and single checkbox fields actually appear as greyed-out checkboxes, etc. I had to modify SimpleHTMLGen a little to support these changes. The change is that the html function is now able to generate valueless tags like "disabled". In addition, I've modified CheckboxField to return 1 and 0 (true and false) rather than "on" and 0, to be consistent with both documentation and expectations. These are relatively largish changes that will break code that depends on getting "on" and 0 from CheckboxFields, so I'm not sure if I should check them into CVS. What's the feeling? ...Edmund. |
From: Luke O. <lu...@me...> - 2003-03-30 05:44:55
|
Yes, we've made similar modifications to get true/false values, so I'd appreciate them in cvs and the next release. :) - Luke Quoting Edmund Lian <el...@in...>: > > Gee, I forgot that this mailing list exists... should have just posted the > following here, rather than the Webware list a few days ago... > > I've hacked MultiCheckboxField and CheckboxField to properly support the > static and hide options. Static multi and single checkbox fields actually > appear as greyed-out checkboxes, etc. I had to modify SimpleHTMLGen a > little to support these changes. The change is that the html function is > now able to generate valueless tags like "disabled". > > In addition, I've modified CheckboxField to return 1 and 0 (true and false) > rather than "on" and 0, to be consistent with both documentation and > expectations. > > These are relatively largish changes that will break code that depends on > getting "on" and 0 from CheckboxFields, so I'm not sure if I should check > them into CVS. > > What's the feeling? > > ...Edmund. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: > The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! > NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en > _______________________________________________ > Funformkit-discuss mailing list > Fun...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/funformkit-discuss > |
From: Ian B. <ia...@co...> - 2003-03-30 06:10:39
|
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 21:38, Edmund Lian wrote: > I've hacked MultiCheckboxField and CheckboxField to properly support the > static and hide options. Static multi and single checkbox fields actually > appear as greyed-out checkboxes, etc. I had to modify SimpleHTMLGen a > little to support these changes. The change is that the html function is > now able to generate valueless tags like "disabled". Cool. Will the static versions work in older browsers (i.e., NS4)? > In addition, I've modified CheckboxField to return 1 and 0 (true and false) > rather than "on" and 0, to be consistent with both documentation and > expectations. > > These are relatively largish changes that will break code that depends on > getting "on" and 0 from CheckboxFields, so I'm not sure if I should check > them into CVS. Anyone who is checking for "on" specifically is being silly. What you describe sounds just fine. Go ahead with the checkin... if there's problems, I don't mind sorting them out in CVS. Ian |