On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:15, Vadim Gritsenko wrote: > Hey guys, > > Has anybody have any suggestions on how to make @required=true, > <wi:styling list-type="radio"/>, widget make less ugly? Currently it > looks like: > ( ) Label for the first radio button > ( o ) Second > ( ) Third * > Where * indicates that the widget is required, but is higly misleading > because it is attached to the third radio button.
For this particular case it can maybe be solved by putting these in a two-column table, with the radio buttons in the first column and the * in the second column. > > I came up with several workarounds: > 1) Change how woody transformer transformrms wt:widget-labels. > Currently, validation error messages and @required attribute are present > only on wi:field (and similar elements). And wt:widget-label disappears > completely, replaced by the content of the label. Instead, it can > replace wt:widget-label with wi:widget-label, which has validation > messages and required attribute. This way, you have more flexibility in > styling the form, including placing of error messages. Yes, but then you'd have to place the required indication and validation errors with together with the label. What if I want to put them somewhere else completely? In general I think there are 4 items that one may like to place separately: the label, the widget itself, the required indication and the validation errors. I think it would then be better to introduce new tags like wt:required and wt:validation-errors so that each of these can be retrieved separately. Whether the stylesheet needs to put the required indication and validation errors next to the widget could be controlled by a stylesheet parameter, with as default behaviour the situation like it is now. > > 2) Do not use woody-field-styling.xsl at all; roll your own... wi:field > has all the necessary data. > > 3) Make woody-field-styling.xsl more flexible: divide field styling into > several steps (using mode="" attribute on templates) > > 4) Ask list for other suggestions :) > > > BTW, is anybody against replacing <xsl:template > name="woody-field-common"/> with <xsl:template match="wi:*" > mode="common"> ? It's not possible to override in the including > stylesheet named templates, but you can override match="" templates. +1 for making them overridable (and thus also for what Joerg was proposing) -- Bruno Dumon http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
