On 04.11.2005 15:36, Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Can't follow you? What do you have in mind?
This is related to the Ajax BrowserUpdateTransformer:
Ok, convinced. Your explanation sounds reasonable.
Jörg
Just as well. I'm still trying to get the portal full screen working
properly. If I can't get it working tomorrow I'll have to back the
change out as I'll be away next week.
Ralph
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
To be honest I'm not really happy about this vote: I counted only four
votes! I'm
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
To be honest I'm not really happy about this vote: I counted only four
votes! I'm still trying to figure out what this result means to us?
Anyway, I counted two +1's, one +0.5, one -0.5 and some reservations for
releasing today.
My decision is to not release
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 04.11.2005 02:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Yep. The . and / are already checked in
AbstractWidgetDefinition.setCommonProperties(). We just need to add
:.
Why we need to use a symbol at any cost ? Can we use a simple word
prefix? As
Sylvain Wallez sylvain at apache.org writes:
Now the question is: do you find the \3A quirk to be a blocking issue?
It seems to me that more often inputs in a form will be styled using
classes, so as all inputs share the same styling rule. Also, a way to
avoid the quirk is to use the
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Sylvain Wallez sylvain at apache.org writes:
Now the question is: do you find the \3A quirk to be a blocking issue?
It seems to me that more often inputs in a form will be styled using
classes, so as all inputs share the same styling rule. Also, a way to
avoid the
Sylvain Wallez sylvain at apache.org writes:
Sorry to go back to the origin of this discussion, but wouldn't it then be
better to generate an id for the ajax wrapper element instead of the input
element? Nobody cares about the wrapper element, but nearly everybody about
the styling of the
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
Sylvain Wallez sylvain at apache.org writes:
Sorry to go back to the origin of this discussion, but wouldn't it then be
better to generate an id for the ajax wrapper element instead of the input
element? Nobody cares about the wrapper element, but nearly everybody
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 04.11.2005 02:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Yep. The . and / are already checked in
AbstractWidgetDefinition.setCommonProperties(). We just need to
add :.
Why we need to use a symbol at any cost ? Can we use a simple
Il giorno 03/nov/05, alle ore 06:47, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
-0.5. Too many CForms last minute changes, as you wrote in response
to Sylvain.
Incidentally, I'm +1 on Sylvain's proposed changes to element id
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 03/nov/05, alle ore 06:47, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
-0.5. Too many CForms last minute changes, as you wrote in response to
Sylvain.
+1 from me. Let's not delay once more the baby
The last
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Ugo Cei wrote:
Il giorno 03/nov/05, alle ore 06:47, Carsten Ziegeler ha scritto:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
-0.5. Too many CForms last minute changes, as you wrote in response to
Sylvain.
+1 from me. Let's not delay
Upayavira wrote:
Incidentally, I'm +1 on Sylvain's proposed changes to element id
generation strategy.
My question before voting is how have you gone about identifying that a
colon is a valid character within ids in all browsers?
I checked the XML specification:
(I think this should be discussed in a separate thread)
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
The last minute change is just about replacing -input with :input
within two XSLs, to avoid problems later.
Isn't : used as separator for the namespace prefix?
I don't know if this applies to IDs too, but perhaps
Andreas Hochsteger wrote:
(I think this should be discussed in a separate thread)
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
The last minute change is just about replacing -input with :input
within two XSLs, to avoid problems later.
Isn't : used as separator for the namespace prefix?
I don't know if this
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
This usage in CForms has already been introduced by the recent library
stuff, which associates prefixes to libraries, thus effectively
forbidding the use of : in widget ids (otherwise you cannot
differenciate between a widget name and a composite name that references
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
This usage in CForms has already been introduced by the recent library
stuff, which associates prefixes to libraries, thus effectively
forbidding the use of : in widget ids (otherwise you cannot
differenciate between a widget name and a
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
This usage in CForms has already been introduced by the recent
library stuff, which associates prefixes to libraries, thus
effectively forbidding the use of : in widget ids (otherwise you
cannot differenciate between a
On 3 Nov 2005, at 05:47, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
(if we vote to not release on friday, I can do the release on any
day in
the next week).
What about these three issues targeted for 2.1.8 ???
2005/11/3, Pier Fumagalli [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3 Nov 2005, at 05:47, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
(if we vote to not release on friday, I can do the release on any
day in
the next week).
What about these three issues
On 03.11.2005 06:47, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
+0
Too much to do at the moment to test Cocoon. I'm just reading the lists
at the moment. And from those I don't have the best feelings about the
latest changes.
Jörg
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
Incidentally, I'm +1 on Sylvain's proposed changes to element id
generation strategy.
My question before voting is how have you gone about identifying that a
colon is a valid character within ids in all browsers?
I checked the XML
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Sylvain Wallez wrote:
This usage in CForms has already been introduced by the recent
library stuff, which associates prefixes to libraries, thus
effectively forbidding the use of : in widget ids (otherwise you
cannot differenciate between a
On 04.11.2005 02:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Yep. The . and / are already checked in
AbstractWidgetDefinition.setCommonProperties(). We just need to add :.
Why we need to use a symbol at any cost ? Can we use a simple word
prefix? As cform-[widgetID]?
If you prefix the widget id with a
Joerg Heinicke wrote:
On 04.11.2005 02:09, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
Yep. The . and / are already checked in
AbstractWidgetDefinition.setCommonProperties(). We just need to add
:.
Why we need to use a symbol at any cost ? Can we use a simple word
prefix? As cform-[widgetID]?
If you
To be honest I'm not really happy about this vote: I counted only four
votes! I'm still trying to figure out what this result means to us?
Anyway, I counted two +1's, one +0.5, one -0.5 and some reservations for
releasing today.
My decision is to not release today, sorry, but imho there are not
On 04.11.2005, at 08:30, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
To be honest I'm not really happy about this vote: I counted only four
votes! I'm still trying to figure out what this result means to us?
I suspect it means I haven't tested enough to be confident so
I don't know. Have all reported issues
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
(if we vote to not release on friday, I can do the release on any day in
the next week).
Carsten
--
Carsten Ziegeler - Open Source Group, SN AG
http://www.s-und-n.de
http://www.osoco.org/weblogs/rael/
Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
(if we vote to not release on friday, I can do the release on any day in
the next week).
Carsten
+1
Le 3 nov. 05, à 06:47, Carsten Ziegeler a écrit :
Please cast your votes for releasing 2.1.8 on friday, 4th of November.
+0.5: ok to the release, but if people think we need more time to test
the latest changes (forms?), I'm ok with that.
-Bertrand
30 matches
Mail list logo
