On Saturday 11 October 2014 16:56:39 meik michalke wrote:
> well, in fact there is no rk.XML.option() yet ;-) all options are directly
> defined by rk.XML.radio() as a list. but if one needs the possibility of
> getting an ID from an option, adding rk.XML.option() seems to be inevitable.
> i don't se another way to clearly specify which option you mean, except
> directly naming the ID yourself.

Oh, I wasn't paying attention. Well, I'm not sure about the implications. Few 
options will ever need an id, and those that don't need one, should not be 
given one (to avoid name clashes, and for better performance). And inside one 
radio/dropdown, the number of id'ed options will certainly be limited, anyway. 
Thus, perhaps, naming an id manually, is the way to go. I.e rk.XML.radio() 
could accept options like this:

list ("First option"=c (val="1"), "Second option"=c (val="2", chk=TRUE), 
"Optional option"=c (val="3", id="three"))


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Meet PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance Requirements with EventLog Analyzer
Achieve PCI DSS 3.0 Compliant Status with Out-of-the-box PCI DSS Reports
Are you Audit-Ready for PCI DSS 3.0 Compliance? Download White paper
Comply to PCI DSS 3.0 Requirement 10 and 11.5 with EventLog Analyzer
RKWard-devel mailing list

Reply via email to