Re: Generated widget markup
I think, the new GWT 2.0 Layout Panel address pretty much that -
they're designed for standards mode, and you can make do without
Tables (VerticalPanel etc). You can still use them for data tables, in
which case they're semantically correct.
On Mar 12, 2:19 pm, mmoossen mmoos...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all!
i was surprised, even disappointed, when i realized how GWT (ab)uses
html tables.
For instance the vertical panel and the tree widget ARE html tables.
why it is so??
should not it be much better just to use a list of DIVs (or even a UL)
for the vertical panel and nested ULs for the tree??
i mean, in the days of HTML5, CSS3, ria, and so on... semantically
correct markup is a MUST BE.
well, perhaps there is a really good reason behind it...
so i would be really happy if somebody could help me to understand the
idea...
or has somebody already written semantic widgets and wants to share
them ;)
thanks
Michael
PS: i was just thinking that a tree item could have been composed by a
vertical panel, so if i implement the vertical panel as an UL i would
get automagically a nested ULs tree, but it is not :(
but i think that is what i will do now :)
PS2: i think code
likehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
DOM.setStyleAttribute(getElement(), zoom, 1);
should also better go in a TreeImplIE class as
inhttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
/**
* IE specific implementation class for {...@link TreeItem}.
*/
public static class TreeItemImplIE6 extends TreeItemImpl {
@Override
void convertToFullNode(TreeItem item) {
super.convertToFullNode(item);
DOM.setStyleAttribute(item.getElement(), marginBottom, 0px);
}
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
Re: Generated widget markup
First of all, there have always been widgets that have used tables, and
those that don't. When we started designing them, tables were pretty much
the only way to get sane layout behavior, especially before anything like
standards mode was widely supported. But it's always been possible to
avoid them -- they're not baked deeply into the system.
We have definitely been moving away from tables for most layout structure
and newer widgets, and will continue to do so. And as Chris points out, the
2.0 layout widgets avoid tables altogether (and are much more stable in
their behavior than the old table-based widgets).
However, when you say that semantically correct markup is a MUST BE, it's
important to be clear about your actual goals, rather than making such a
statement a priori. These DOM structures are never serialized into static
content, for example. And it's also a fair question to ask what the
semantics of a stack of divs are, as opposed to a table -- they're both
semantically meaningless.
We will continue to do what works best in practice, not conform to an
arbitrary standard that has no effect on functionality. Fortunately, this
will likely lead us to an outcome where we *do* use the elements that you're
proposing are appropriate, but if there are cases where a table works better
in practice, then that's what we'll use.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Chris Lercher cl_for_mail...@gmx.netwrote:
I think, the new GWT 2.0 Layout Panel address pretty much that -
they're designed for standards mode, and you can make do without
Tables (VerticalPanel etc). You can still use them for data tables, in
which case they're semantically correct.
On Mar 12, 2:19 pm, mmoossen mmoos...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all!
i was surprised, even disappointed, when i realized how GWT (ab)uses
html tables.
For instance the vertical panel and the tree widget ARE html tables.
why it is so??
should not it be much better just to use a list of DIVs (or even a UL)
for the vertical panel and nested ULs for the tree??
i mean, in the days of HTML5, CSS3, ria, and so on... semantically
correct markup is a MUST BE.
well, perhaps there is a really good reason behind it...
so i would be really happy if somebody could help me to understand the
idea...
or has somebody already written semantic widgets and wants to share
them ;)
thanks
Michael
PS: i was just thinking that a tree item could have been composed by a
vertical panel, so if i implement the vertical panel as an UL i would
get automagically a nested ULs tree, but it is not :(
but i think that is what i will do now :)
PS2: i think code likehttp://
code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
DOM.setStyleAttribute(getElement(), zoom, 1);
should also better go in a TreeImplIE class as inhttp://
code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
/**
* IE specific implementation class for {...@link TreeItem}.
*/
public static class TreeItemImplIE6 extends TreeItemImpl {
@Override
void convertToFullNode(TreeItem item) {
super.convertToFullNode(item);
DOM.setStyleAttribute(item.getElement(), marginBottom, 0px);
}
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comgoogle-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
Re: Generated widget markup
On Mar 12, 5:33 pm, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote: These DOM structures are never serialized into static content, for example. And it's also a fair question to ask what the semantics of a stack of divs are, as opposed to a table -- they're both semantically meaningless. I'm still a little bit undecided on this. On the one hand, HTML is about document semantics (in contrast to generic XML), on the other hand, with a technology like GWT, it's more and more possible to view HTML as a kind of machine language for the web. If no one writes it by hand anymore, then semantics are really meaningless on that layer. Semantics move into the ui.xml - and HTML authors may have to learn UiBinder instead. I think, this may be a good thing. But we must not forget, that UiBinder is GWT specific. Also, when mixing HTML with widgets (which is a great feature of UiBinder!), we will keep HTML semantics around for some time, and can't drop it completely: What if I want to generate an index of all tables in a document for example. In that case, I'd search the ui.xml for elements that have table semantics - be it an HTML table, or a Table widget that carries such semantics. I don't know, if using divs with a class attribute for this purpose would be a good idea, because that attribute is rather used to attach CSS styles (mixed concerns). A different attribute could be used of course - but that just brings us back to the question: Why not use element names? ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Web Toolkit group. To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
Re: Generated widget markup
thanks chris for pointing this out.
looks interesting, but not really what i am looking for (actually a
simple and nice tree)
Michael
On Mar 12, 4:32 pm, Chris Lercher cl_for_mail...@gmx.net wrote:
I think, the new GWT 2.0 Layout Panel address pretty much that -
they're designed for standards mode, and you can make do without
Tables (VerticalPanel etc). You can still use them for data tables, in
which case they're semantically correct.
On Mar 12, 2:19 pm, mmoossen mmoos...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all!
i was surprised, even disappointed, when i realized how GWT (ab)uses
html tables.
For instance the vertical panel and the tree widget ARE html tables.
why it is so??
should not it be much better just to use a list of DIVs (or even a UL)
for the vertical panel and nested ULs for the tree??
i mean, in the days of HTML5, CSS3, ria, and so on... semantically
correct markup is a MUST BE.
well, perhaps there is a really good reason behind it...
so i would be really happy if somebody could help me to understand the
idea...
or has somebody already written semantic widgets and wants to share
them ;)
thanks
Michael
PS: i was just thinking that a tree item could have been composed by a
vertical panel, so if i implement the vertical panel as an UL i would
get automagically a nested ULs tree, but it is not :(
but i think that is what i will do now :)
PS2: i think code
likehttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
DOM.setStyleAttribute(getElement(), zoom, 1);
should also better go in a TreeImplIE class as
inhttp://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
/**
* IE specific implementation class for {...@link TreeItem}.
*/
public static class TreeItemImplIE6 extends TreeItemImpl {
@Override
void convertToFullNode(TreeItem item) {
super.convertToFullNode(item);
DOM.setStyleAttribute(item.getElement(), marginBottom, 0px);
}
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
Re: Generated widget markup
ok, thanks for the answer, and sorry if i was being rude.
i am also developer and i understand your points, but until now i have
been able to create perfect behaving trees with nested ULs and i would
like to continue doing that unless there is really a good reason for
using nested tables instead.
i can only see that the alignment (h-ly and v-ly) of tree items is
much easier using tables, but it is not impossible with nested ULs,
and may be an additional div wrapper...
thanks
Michael
ps: as chris said GWT2.0 widgets do not use any tables, but is there
any GWT2.0 tree?
On Mar 12, 5:33 pm, Joel Webber j...@google.com wrote:
First of all, there have always been widgets that have used tables, and
those that don't. When we started designing them, tables were pretty much
the only way to get sane layout behavior, especially before anything like
standards mode was widely supported. But it's always been possible to
avoid them -- they're not baked deeply into the system.
We have definitely been moving away from tables for most layout structure
and newer widgets, and will continue to do so. And as Chris points out, the
2.0 layout widgets avoid tables altogether (and are much more stable in
their behavior than the old table-based widgets).
However, when you say that semantically correct markup is a MUST BE, it's
important to be clear about your actual goals, rather than making such a
statement a priori. These DOM structures are never serialized into static
content, for example. And it's also a fair question to ask what the
semantics of a stack of divs are, as opposed to a table -- they're both
semantically meaningless.
We will continue to do what works best in practice, not conform to an
arbitrary standard that has no effect on functionality. Fortunately, this
will likely lead us to an outcome where we *do* use the elements that you're
proposing are appropriate, but if there are cases where a table works better
in practice, then that's what we'll use.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Chris Lercher cl_for_mail...@gmx.netwrote:
I think, the new GWT 2.0 Layout Panel address pretty much that -
they're designed for standards mode, and you can make do without
Tables (VerticalPanel etc). You can still use them for data tables, in
which case they're semantically correct.
On Mar 12, 2:19 pm, mmoossen mmoos...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all!
i was surprised, even disappointed, when i realized how GWT (ab)uses
html tables.
For instance the vertical panel and the tree widget ARE html tables.
why it is so??
should not it be much better just to use a list of DIVs (or even a UL)
for the vertical panel and nested ULs for the tree??
i mean, in the days of HTML5, CSS3, ria, and so on... semantically
correct markup is a MUST BE.
well, perhaps there is a really good reason behind it...
so i would be really happy if somebody could help me to understand the
idea...
or has somebody already written semantic widgets and wants to share
them ;)
thanks
Michael
PS: i was just thinking that a tree item could have been composed by a
vertical panel, so if i implement the vertical panel as an UL i would
get automagically a nested ULs tree, but it is not :(
but i think that is what i will do now :)
PS2: i think code likehttp://
code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
DOM.setStyleAttribute(getElement(), zoom, 1);
should also better go in a TreeImplIE class as inhttp://
code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/source/browse/trunk/user/...
/**
* IE specific implementation class for {...@link TreeItem}.
*/
public static class TreeItemImplIE6 extends TreeItemImpl {
@Override
void convertToFullNode(TreeItem item) {
super.convertToFullNode(item);
DOM.setStyleAttribute(item.getElement(), marginBottom, 0px);
}
}
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comgoogle-web-toolkit%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google Web Toolkit group.
To post to this group, send email to google-web-tool...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-web-toolkit+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-web-toolkit?hl=en.
