On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 9:31 PM, André Eriksson <ean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> {% form myform %}
> {% using birthday=calendar %}
> {% renderer "as_ul" %}
> {% autocomplete "name_autocomplete" %}
> {% doctype xhtml1 %}
> {% endform %}
i like this syntax; it's a lot more readable than a chain of
parameters of filters on a single tag.
> I see this as having several advantages:
>
> 1) It introduces a clearer way of laying out settings.
> 2) It leverages the template engine for specifying defaults in a
> simple but ingenious way:
> {% form myform %}
> {% include "form_settings.django" %}
> {% endform %}
> -- form_settings.django:
> {% doctype xhtml1 %}
> {% replace_widget datetime=calendar %}
personally, i don't think this is a nice solution. {%include%}'ing a
set of settings is not a default, it's a packaged setting.
i like better to define a python form of the same; IOW document a
mapping, so that your first example would be equivalent to:
myform.render ({
'birthday_widget':'calendar',
'renderer': "as_ul",
'autocomplete': "name_autocomplete",
'doctype': "xhtml1"
})
or:
myform.render (birthday_widget='calendar', renderer="as_ul",
autocomplete="name_autocomplete", doctype="xhtml1")
and allow the use of either of these syntaxes in settings.py, form
definition or context processors to set defaults.
--
Javier
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
