Bleh, the "Does that make more sense now?
Regards, ~ Simon" should have been placed much later, there're comments after it. And it should have been "Does it make more sense now? Regards, ~ Simon" Thanks to my broken English... On 8/29/06, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >
