Well, we really owe it to Sylvain as we lead a discussion about that a year ago - there was a resolution we all agreed on, but then it was not implemented due to time constraints.
@Kalle and Grant: sorry that I misinterpreted your approach, Kalle - with Sylvain and my suggestion there is (I promise ;) no changing component - only the rendering is different depending on the attribute. Again: That only effects the HTML rendering, not the component tree. regards, Martin On 5/10/05, Sean Schofield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > While discussing this has taken a long time, I don't see any wrong in > > it. It's still cheap and easy compared to implementing different > > components, then comparing their implementations, fixing possible bugs > > etc. > > I agree with Kalle that there is no harm in a prolonged discussion on > this. If memory serves me, we have only been discussing this for a > week or so. I think we should consider postponing the vote and taking > a little more time with this. > > My reasoning is that this solves a problem that many of us (including > myself) need to have solved. Lets pick an approach that we can all > live with. > > On the other hand, we owe it to Sylvain to not drag this out. Lets > try to resolve this quickly but also give it the consideration it > deserves. Also, the answer to this problem involves several "design > principles" that we should probably agree upon. For instance, concern > over bloated attributes, mutating components, etc. > > I need some time to re-read this very extensive thread. Maybe Sylvain > or Kalle can summarize the options for us (Option #1, #2, etc.) > People can add new options (give them a new number) and we can have a > quick discussion and reference these options by # and discuss pros and > cons. > > > Kalle > > sean >
