--- On Fri, 4/23/10, Robert Morley <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 - I think properly modeling the
> field using the required-field attribute makes perfect
> sense. I would think our html form renderer
> implementation should probably just apply a class "required"
> at render time and the visual should be handled by css.
I believe I was the one who introduced the required CSS class and that was my
reasoning - have the style sheet determine what a required field looks like.
At the time, the asterisk was being used to indicate a required field. The
problem was, most forms didn't have an explanation as to what the asterisk
meant. So the result looked odd.
No "best practice" was discussed or decided upon. I just put the new CSS class
in the style sheet and I left it to the community to decide by using it or not.
I like the idea of service definitions driving the required fields.
-Adrian
>
> On Apr 23, 2010, at 2:35 PM, Bilgin Ibryam wrote:
>
> > Here is what I propose:
> > Remove all the ${uiLabelMap.CommonRequired} tooltips
> from form definitions. The tooltip should be used to provide
> other information as it is for not required fields (the
> purpose of the field, the format)
> > Remove all the widget-style="required" from form
> definitions.
> > If a field is required, (on form widget) set only its
> attribute required-field="true". In cases when the form is
> based on service definition (auto-fields-service) it is not
> neccessary to set this attribute. Then no need to add
> tooltip="${uiLabelMap.CommonRequired} or
> widget-style="required" attibutes on the form definition.
> The renderer should decide how to indicate the required
> field.
> >
> > Change form renderer, so if a field is required it is
> indicated by asterix plus required style ( same as
> widget-style="required")
> >
>
