Oups, comments below On 8/29/06, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
one question below Simon Lessard wrote: > Hello Pavitra, > > I had to do about the same changes on my side. Here's my list of selector > and the rules I used: > > - af|train::stop combinable with :selected, :disabled, :completed (will > probably become p_AFVisited) and :unvisited. You can append :readOnly > at the > end of the result. So af|train::stop:unvisited:readOnly is valid > - af|train::link > - af|train::join combinable with :disabled, :completed, :unvisited and > :outer (:outer is used to add joins outside the edge of the train. I > don't > think many will use it, but it cost nothing and add more customization > possibilities) Is :outer a state? It sounds to me like it should be af|train::join-outer
yes, it could be ::join-outer, was made a state only to fit the other join selectors, but it does make more sense to use -outer for that one. Does that make more sense now? Regards, ~ Simon
- af|train::overflow-start combinable with :disabled and :readOnly > - af|train::overflow-end combinable with :disabled, :unvisited and > :readOnly > > I have the following valid suffixes: (I could not use ::content for > example > since double :: is now prevented from Adam's change to prevent some > strange > behavior it seem) I don't think two pseudo-elements make sense, does it? I suppose you could have a piece of a piece. Adam prevented it because there were bugs in it. I can't recall what the bugs were.
I was seeing them more as sub-elements, like ::stop::content (content of the stop)
-content (for example, the following is valid: af|train::stop-content > and > af|train::stop:selected-content. This selector refers to the link cell fo > the train) What does a :selected-content 'state' mean? How is it different than af|train::stop-content:selected?
My bad there, af|train::stop-content:selected is actually what I use. Even if a better selector would have been af|train::stop:selected::content imho.
-icon-block (as above but refers to the icon cell) Could you say -icon-cell? We use 'cell' quite a bit in our skinning selectors.
Yes I could, I was using block only because it was in Pavitra document at first.
> The icons follow the same rule. > > On 8/28/06, Pavitra Subramaniam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Hello Simon, >> >> I have also almost completed implementing the TrainRenderer using the >> new >> skin selectors. It's great to know you are done as well. If you plan to >> check in the train renderer code anytime soon, can we agree on the >> common >> list of skin selectors, so that I can reuse them for my work >> internally at >> Oracle? I had to make the following changes and wanted to give you an >> update. >> >> 1. I had to introduce a new state called "read-only". This is different >> from "disabled" state, like I explained in a previous email. >> >> 2. I removed some redundant skin hooks - I can send you the updated list >> of selectors I am using. I also couldn't get the "pass-through states" >> :visited, :active and :unvisited to work, just as you. So I have >> temporarily >> defined selectors like Jeanne suggested (using p_AFVisited, >> p_AFUnvisited >> etc. and renamed :active to :selected). >> >> 3. Finally I have simplified the rules for determining the state of >> joins. >> I figured it would be much simpler if we did the following. The join >> to the >> left of a stop, is 'always in the same state as the stop' (Overflows >> could >> also follow the same rules as stops). So for instance for a train like >> >> V ----- VR ----- UV ----- A ----- D ----- UVR ----- V >> vr uv v d uvr v >> >> >> NOTE: The only exception, is the join to the left of an active stop is >> visited. Also, UVR and VR are stops that are in 2 states >> simulataneously - >> 'visited & read-only' and 'unvisited & read-only'. Read-only implies the >> stop cannot be reached (and hence not clickable) and is dictated by the >> 'readOnly' property on the component commandNavigationItem. >> >> Please let me know if the above is ok. >> >> >> Thanks >> - Pavitra >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Simon Lessard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:43 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: Train selectors >> > >> > Hmmm you mean somthing like af|train::stop.p_AFVisited? >> > >> > On 8/28/06, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > >> > > I was thinking :selected for :active. :selected could be used for >> > > other components, too. >> > > For :visited/:unvisited, I can't think of a better name. >> > I'm thinking >> > > that we should use .p_AFVisited, .P_AFUnvisited until we have the >> > > pseudo-class support in. These wouldn't in a public api >> > format, though. >> > > >> > > - Jeanne >> > > >> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > > >> > > >Hello, >> > > > >> > > >I thought about the following name changes for the selectors: >> > > > >> > > >:active --> :current or :selected >> > > >:visited/:unvisited --> :completed/:uncompleted or :seen/:unseen >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >Do you have any other idea/preference? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >Regards, >> > > > >> > > >~ Simon >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >"Simon Lessard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > >2006-08-25 22:49 >> > > >Please respond to adffaces-dev >> > > > >> > > > To: "Trinidad - Dev" >> > <[email protected]> >> > > > cc: >> > > > Subject: Train selectors >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >Yes... again... >> > > > >> > > >I made a new renderer and it work quite well, but I had to use >> > > >:ora-visited and :ora-active for some selectors because those are >> > > >"pass through" >> > > >values. >> > > >Anyone have better name suggestion while we implement state >> > > >interception on a per component basis? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >Regards, >> > > > >> > > >~ Simon >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >
