Am 07/23/2014 11:42 PM, schrieb Alexandro Colorado:
On 7/23/14, Alexandro Colorado<j...@oooes.org>  wrote:
On 7/23/14, Emanuele<emanuel...@gmail.com>  wrote:

Alexandro Colorado wrote:
It would be better if you use the site to show it.

I'm showing you the code, not the result, because the result is an
almost exact copy of the table you already know (provided you have
javascript enabled), only in "pure" HTML (no javascript required). The
difference is that it is generated while building the site, and being
the generation the point of my comment, I published only that part.

That said, the reason for the table is because we werent that open to
use Javascript. We would still argue that we have a<noscript>  code.

Regardless if its XML, JSON or HTML or even a bash script to
autogenerate the HTML from a sqlite datasource.

Not sure what you want to say here: is it fine with you to use js?
Then it's fine with me as well. ;-)

By the way here is a sample of a JQuery Filter table that could be a
big step forward in UX.
http://sunnywalker.github.io/jQuery.FilterTable/filtertable-existing-input.html
Here is the plugin source:
https://github.com/sunnywalker/jQuery.FilterTable

nice find. Putting the filter box - enlarged - more visible into the middle right above the table could be indeed a big step forward in UX.

Marcus



Yes, sorry it didnt make sense, my point is how to allocate the
information of the download, I think embeded in the JS is not good,
and we could have a different feed (whenever XML, JSON or other).

The point is to make it easily maintainable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org

Reply via email to