On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 12:47:37PM +0000, Joerg Heinicke wrote: > Vadim Gritsenko <vadim <at> reverycodes.com> writes: > > > >>>I would think for the same reason one would otherwise wd:output instead > > >>>of wd:field. In this case one would however need a wd:multivalueOutput > > >>>widget. > > >>> > > >>Yes, but why not type=output? > > > > > >because an output widget doesn't read its value from the request. With a > > >normal (multivalue)field widget, the value can always be modified by > > >adding the appropriate request parameters. > > > > > > > Aha. Now this makes sense. +1 to multivalueoutput > > Instead of adding an additional output widget for every type of existing widgets > would it not make more sense to add an attribute or additional element to the > existing widgets similar to the binding's direction="load"? > > Joerg
+5 I never understood why we have an output widget which only serves as an output only version of the field widget, but did not have any support for output versions of the other widgets (repeaters, etc.) Lets fix this the right way like Joerg suggests and deprecate the separate, lonely, output widget. --Tim Larson
