Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Russ! Just a couple quick points:
> As noted in my reply to Preston, this should easily possibly using
> chrome; I'm not sure I see why you disagree. The new options may be
> funcitonal, but from my reading of the HTML5 spec, they're functional
> in terms of UX, not in terms of data modification. The widget and
> field are used to process and parse the content of any value that is
> POSTed by a form; anything that the user sees about a form is a
> presentational issue, AFAICT.
Having now read that reply, I see what you mean about the chrome. I
hadn't understood chrome as being something that could be "layered".
It sounded more like your idea was "here is a complete calendar UI
solution" and that to add new attributes you'd essentially have to
subclass/rewrite the whole piece of chrome. If they're "stackable",
I'm all for it.
> > So, whether these become filters, or arguments to the {%
> > form %} tag, I really can't support them being implicit in the form
> > tag that gets loaded. No magic here, please!
>
> I think I understand the nature of your concern, but I'm not sure if I
> agree with calling this magic. You import a library that exercises the
> defaults you want to use. Library loads only survive for the duration
> of a single template, so there isn't any risk of a load in one
> template file accidentally changing behavior elsewhere.
The case where it becomes "magic" is if tag library authors start
including these renderers with bundles of other tags... so you go to
load up your favorite handy tag library, and you forget that it also
comes with a custom renderer, and suddenly you've got a mess on your
hands because it replaced your explicitly-loaded renderer. Admittedly
it's not the most common case, but it still concerns me.
> That said, the block-based {% form %} rendering proposal potentially
> gets around this by opening the possibility of making the layout
> selection a subtag that is explicitly specified in the context of a
> specific {% form %} instance.
That certainly seems reasonable to me.
> Thanks for the feedback, Gabriel.
Thank you!
- Gabriel
--
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.
