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
