Hello Adam, On 9/18/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think it should be as simple as for each of "busy" and > "ready", render the facet if it's present, the icon if it's not.
The only issue with that behavior is most common usage. I think the most common usage with facets is going to be a "busy" facet and no "ready" (to mimic GMail behavior for example). Personally, that's the way I would use it. If that's really the most common case, then it should be "as soon as a facet is specified, rendered or not, no icon will be rendered". But, if we think the most common case is going to be with both facets, then I agree with your suggestion. ~ Simon -- Adam > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm not as simple as I though. Before pushing a patch let decide on the > > behavior for every use case: > > > > Both facets are specified and rendered --> Don't render any icon > > Both facets are specified but only one is rendered --> ? > > Both facets are specified but neither are rendered --> ? > > Only one facet is specified and rendered --> Don't render any icon or > > render the icon of the missing facet? > > Only one facet is specified but not rendered --> ? > > No facet is specified --> Render both icons > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Or put tr:icon in the facet. Yeah, that sound good too. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > that sounds like the best solution. > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Adam Winer < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > IMO, if we have a facet, we don't render the icon. No need > > > > > for an attribute at all. > > > > > > > > > > Anyone that desperately needs both the facet and the icon > > > > > can render two statusIndicators. > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Matthias Wessendorf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/18/07, Simon Lessard < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Speaking of which, I forgot to add skin documentation. I'll do > > that right > > > > > > > away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I would also like to add a new attribute to skip the icon > > rendering. If it > > > > > > > hasn't been of backward compatibility, I would have simply > removed > > them > > > > > > > > > > > > I added a demo usage of the facet's, I was thinking, that it > > shouldn't > > > > > > render the "default" icon, > > > > > > glad you pointed it out now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > since it's easily doable with a combination of facet and > tr:icon, > > but since > > > > > > > we had a release with the statusIndicator already, that's out > of > > question. > > > > > > > So, what I need now is a decent attribute name. What do you > think > > of > > > > > > > "renderIcon" or "renderFacetsOnly"? > > > > > > > > > > > > I tend to like renderFacetsOnly, because that what you added > where > > facets. > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps, we can change that soon, that when facet's are > specified, > > we > > > > > > don't render the "default" icon. > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matthias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Simon > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > > > > > further stuff: > > > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Matthias Wessendorf > > > > > > > > further stuff: > > > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > > > > mail: matzew-at-apache-dot-org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
