Hi Simon,
I only have time to glance at these emails, but I wanted to comment real
quickly.
Yes, we've discovered that composite selectors don't work well in IE. I'll
take a look at your blog link.
I have been tasked to provide some fix, even if it isn't perfect, for
IE6. We
are hoping most people will upgrade to IE7, since I hear there is a
security
fix in IE7. It is fine in IE7, or so I've been told .I don't have IE7
myself.
I was thinking about doing something along the lines as you've suggested.
Seems the skinning tasks are piling up!
Simon Lessard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I did not have any nightmare in the end, I found a quote instead:
> "Don't be
> too hard with Microsoft Internet Explorer, it is not bad, you can
> download
> Firefox with it".
>
> Anyway, I thought about a work around as well but it's far from easy
> and/or
> convenient. The idea would be to keep the state in the selector rather
> than
> extracting it and add automatic rule-ref from the parent selector.
> e.g. if
> you have af|train::stop:unvisited, instead of being splitted as
> af_train_stop p_AFUnvisited, it would become one selector
> af_train_stop_unvisited but a rule-ref would be added at parsing level
to
> af_train_stop selector.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On 8/29/06, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ok, I found the reproduction case... It's going to be painful...
>> Microsoft
>> must have worked hard to invent such bug:
>>
>> This code is working
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";>
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <title>5.8.3 Class Selectors</title>
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
>> <style type="text/css">
>> P.liberty.give {color: blue; border: 2px solid red; background:
>> white;}
>> </style>
>> </head>
>> <body>
>> <p class="liberty me">
>> This is a paragraph with a class of 'liberty me', and should
NOT
>> be red (border), white (background), and blue (foreground).
>> </p>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>>
>> This code is not:
>>
>> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd";>
>> <html>
>> <head>
>> <title>5.8.3 Class Selectors</title>
>> <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css">
>> <style type="text/css">
>> P.give.liberty {color: blue; border: 2px solid red; background:
>> white;}
>> </style>
>> </head>
>> <body>
>> <p class="liberty me">
>> This is a paragraph with a class of 'liberty me', and should
NOT
>> be red (border), white (background), and blue (foreground).
>> </p>
>> </body>
>> </html>
>>
>>
>> The difference? MSIE is actually only evaluating the last class
>> defined in
>> the rule so in the first example, the p element does not match "give"
>> class
>> so the style is not applied (and it should not be). In the second, it
>> matches .liberty and thus the style is applied. Please someone, tell
>> me you
>> got a lifesaver idea to work around that insanity.
>>
>>
>> Goodnight... Another nightmare is coming for me I'm sure,
>>
>>
>>
>> ~ Simon
>>
>>
>> On 8/29/06, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > *mumble*
>> >
>> > http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx
>> >
>> > *mumble*
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/29/06, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Is it possible that IE is so dumb that it interprets
>> > >
>> > > .af_train_join.p_AFDisabled as .af_train_join OR .p_AFDisabled
>> rather
>> > > than the specified .af_train_join AND .p_AFDisabled?
>> > >
>> > > My diagnosis makes it looks like it and if it's really the case, it
>> > > might be a problem for many or our skinning by state selectors.
>> Anyone knows
>> > > any work around?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > >
>> > > ~ Simon
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 8/29/06, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Yes it would. I'll start by uploading that damned patch first
>> > > > though... And since I have a rendering issue with IE, this will
>> take one
>> > > > more day... Damned IE... Oh and I support RTL fine already as
>> well...
>> > > > There's just that strange bug if joins under IE...
>> > > >
>> > > > The generated CSS includes the class and this is the only class
>> > > > using that join icon...
>> > > >
>> > > > .af_train_join.p_AFUnvisited,.xc1.p_AFUnvisited
>>
{background-image:url('/TrinidadDemo-MenuModel-context-root/skins/train/skin_images/JoinUnvisited.gif');background-repeat:repeat-x}
>>
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > The classes on the content cell are
>> > > >
>> > > > <td colspan="3" class="p_AFUnvisited x72 x73">
>> > > > <!-- Start: org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.Command["_id5"] -->
>> > > > <a onclick="submitForm('_id2',1,{source:'_id4:2:_id5'});return
>> > > > false;" href="#" class="x79">Useless step</a>
>> > > > </td>
>> > > >
>> > > > And the join get rendered for that step in a strange way... ... I
>> > > > hate IE...
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Regards,
>> > > >
>> > > > ~ Simon
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On 8/29/06, Pavitra Subramaniam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > It may also be a good idea to update MVariableResolver.java,
the
>> > > > > test code that sets up MenuModel #{pageList}, to include the
>> visited,
>> > > > > disabled, unvisited + readOnly states. Right now the train
>> golden file only
>> > > > > tests for selected and unvisited states.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > - Pavitra
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > From: Pavitra Subramaniam
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > > ]
>> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 2:46 PM
>> > > > > > To: [email protected]
>> > > > > > Subject: RE: TrainRenderer using the new train selectors
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Hello Simon, Jeanne,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I have some comments on both your email exhanges. I have
>> > > > > > consolidated all the items below as it was getting hard to
>> read.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > - 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
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Do you think we need to support an
>> > > > > "af|train::stop:visited:readOnly"
>> > > > > > - I believe Jeanne wanted to have states that don't use camel
>> > > > > > case. So readOnly should be read-only
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > - af|train::link
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > - should this be ::stop-link or ::link good enough?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > - 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)
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - :join-outer pseudo element is good enough. Is this used
>> > > > > > outside the parent train icons or between the parent train
>> > > > > > icons and the overflow (or stop)?
>> > > > > > - do we still have the join-overflow? This comes between the
>> > > > > > overflow and regular stops. It may be useful in cases where
>> > > > > > only these joins need not be displayed.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > - af|train::overflow-start combinable with :disabled and
>> > > > > :readOnly
>> > > > > > - af|train::overflow-end combinable with :disabled,
>> > > > > > :unvisited and :readOnly
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Do you think we should support :unvisited state on
>> > > > > > overflow-start? This may be useful in cases where the train
>> > > > > > is not sequential? I have a scenario where all stops in the
>> > > > > > train are enabled and user can jump around any stop without a
>> > > > > > prescribed order.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > 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)
>> > > > > > -content (for example, the following is valid:
>> > > > > > af|train::stop-content and
>> > > > > > af|train::stop:selected-content. This selector refers to the
>> > > > > > link cell
>> > > > > > af|(of the train)
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - I agree with Jeanne. Let's call it stop-content:selected. I
>> > > > > > don't think we need stop-content:visited or
>> > > > > > stop-content:unvisited. It's an overkill.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > -icon-block (as above but refers to the icon cell)
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - Perhaps we should have a convention of using -block suffix
>> > > > > > for style classes that go on <div> and -cell for styles that
>> > > > > > go on td. Is that acceptable?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > I use the same join rule as you, that is previous stop
>> > > > > > determine the join state, except for the join after the
>> > > > > > selected stop. The only exception are disabled stops, those
>> > > > > > have disabled joins on both sides.
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > - the join after the selected stop should ideally have the
>> > > > > > state of the following stop. Isn't it? Do you think it will
>> > > > > > be easier to just show the left join of a disabled stop as
>> > > > > > "disabled". So if an unvisited stop follows the disabled
>> > > > > > stop, the join between them will show up as unvisited. At
>> > > > > > least this is how I have implemented it. I use the same rule
>> > > > > > for displaying joins before overflows.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > I also go rid of the separator, it's redundant as you can add
>> > > > > > padding to -content selector. I also added two aliases
>> > > > > > .AFTrainContent:alias and .AFTrainIconBlock. So you can add
>> > > > > > spacing between stop with something like the following:
>> > > > > > .AFTrainContent:alias
>> > > > > > {
>> > > > > > padding-left: 8px;
>> > > > > > padding-right: 8px;
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > > >>>>
>> > > > > > When you say separator, do you mean the spacer that separates
>> > > > > > stops? Where is the alias above included? Can you send me a
>> > > > > > HTML fragment?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Thanks
>> > > > > > - Pavitra
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > From: Simon Lessard [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:43 AM
>> > > > > > > To: [email protected]
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: TrainRenderer using the new train selectors
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Ok,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Then if those selectors are ok for you as well Pavitra I'll
>> > > > > > make the
>> > > > > > > changes to -outer and and -icon-cell tonight and upload the
>> > > > > > patch as
>> > > > > > > well as a test skin I used.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Regards,
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > ~ Simon
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On 8/29/06, Jeanne Waldman < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > yep, it all makes sense.
>> > > > > > > > I can see where you'd want to use a ::content. That would
>> > > > > > > make sense.
>> > > > > > > > We don't do this yet in any of our skinning keys, so I am
>> > > > > > fine with
>> > > > > > > > the -content, since we do that all over the place. :)
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > - Jeanne
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Simon Lessard 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
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> > >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >> >
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >>
>> > > > > > > > >> >
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >>
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
