On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Mislav
Marohnić wrote:
> Oh, you might wanna take a look at this then:
> http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/01d92021e69f54def1ec8103b2b99f907dd88ec4
Good point.
I'm doing HTML5 stuff on my own, and I guess I haven't seen any
discussions here regarding switchin
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 22:41, Mark Turner wrote:
>
> I would argue that we don't make HTML5 anything close to a default
> until at least after October when the "last call" working draft is
> finished.
Oh, you might wanna take a look at this then:
http://github.com/rails/rails/commit/01d92021e6
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Trevor Turk wrote:
>
> On Aug 11, 10:37 am, Ryan Bates wrote:
>> It's invalid in XHTML Strict to not wrap inline elements in a block
>> element (such as a or ). But I just realized scaffolding uses
>> XHTML Transitional so it's not technically invalid there.
>
>
On Aug 11, 10:37 am, Ryan Bates wrote:
> It's invalid in XHTML Strict to not wrap inline elements in a block
> element (such as a or ). But I just realized scaffolding uses
> XHTML Transitional so it's not technically invalid there.
Aren't we moving to HTML5?
- Trevor
--~--~-~--~~-
FWIW,
I implement my delete actions by using a modified version of button_to
which actually creates an inline form with a *button* tag instead of
an input of type 'submit'
That way, I can style the button to appear exactly like a link. I can
also attach the appropriate javascript to the f
On Aug 11, 8:10 am, Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> Blindly changing all elements to isn't a sign of being a good
> HTML citizen.
Fair enough. The tag is fine.
> > 4) +1 Isn't it invalid markup not to have it in a tag?
>
> No, why would it be invalid?
It's invalid in XHTML Strict to not wrap in
José,
i saw this last week, it's amazing.
I just mention about formats to document what format will be default.
Kivanio Barbosa
Cel +55 65-8121-4248
Blog: www.kivanio.com.br
Company: www.eiqconsultoria.com.br
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:06 AM, José Valim wrote:
>
>> Nowadays scaffold put ht
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 16:19, Ryan Bates wrote:
>
> Here's my say on the points.
>
> 3) -1 Keep it but use instead of
Ryan, here you're encouraging the exact type of cargo cult markup which—in
my opinion—Rails should stop teaching, and these changes are the right
opportunity to do that.
Bl
> Nowadays scaffold put html and xml by default, but i think xml isn't a
> good option to be pressent in every action by default.
This is being handled differently. You should be able to put in your
application controller:
respond_to :html, :xml, :json
And use respond_with in your actions to
I know Ryan i have one too.
I agree with you however i think xml should be removed.
As you said just html will be enough to beginners.
Kivanio Barbosa
Cel +55 65-8121-4248
Blog: www.kivanio.com.br
Company: www.eiqconsultoria.com.br
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Ryan Bates wrote:
>
> O
On Aug 10, 5:56 am, José Valim wrote:
> There are around 5 tickets on Lighthouse (probably more) about
> changing Rails scaffold. I would like to summarize the requests here,
> so we can finally agree in a solution.
Move the scaffold in the direction of Formtastic, which is the leading
edge of
On Aug 11, 5:54 am, Kivanio wrote:
> I think you should put one more option to choice formats in scaffold.
>
> Something like --format=xml,html,json --actionformat=index,rss
-1 on adding a "--format" option. It will be much easier to add/remove
this afterwards in Rails 3 scaffold. Also I think t
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 14:31, Albert Llop wrote:
> On mislav's comment I just have to add that it makes no sense to use
> when you can use , and if you want the scaffold to have labels show
> bold, then use css.
Albert, while talking about we were actually talking about markup on
"show" page
Here's my say on the points.
1) +1 on _form partial. We had this before and I didn't hear anyone
confused by it.
2) -1 Either keep it tag or use
3) -1 Keep it but use instead of
4) +1 Isn't it invalid markup not to have it in a tag?
5) +1 Since it generates a CSS file it makes sense to keep
I agree with all said above.
I think you should put one more option to choice formats in scaffold.
Something like --format=xml,html,json --actionformat=index,rss
So, i can choice what format will be present at controller, maybe per
action too.
Nowadays scaffold put html and xml by default, but
> 1) Should we put forms in a _form partial? On the same way this is the
> "best practice", we are adding more code for people to grasp at the
> beginning.
I think the partial is the best way to keep code DRY, even beginners
would learn partials and it's magic easier and faster than anything
else
Yay - sounds good. So I'll just email him?
Taryn
On Aug 10, 7:53 am, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 3:18 PM, taryneast wrote:
>
>
> > Hi there,
>
>
> > I've been using Active Resource pretty heavily over the last four
> > months and have found, like many, that it's not as much lik
Hi Adam.
On Aug 10, 9:09 pm, Adam Milligan wrote:
> Perhaps I'm alone in my opinion, but I don't see the value of this.
> ActiveRecord is an ORM that interfaces with the database;
> ActiveResource is a convenience for manipulating a RESTful API that
> exposes resources as XML. My validations an
> If there's another way planned I'd love to see it.
> Querying the remote system, for example, certainly has its benefits.
Previously we've discussed requesting:
/posts/new.xml
Which could return an 'empty object' which would tell you all the
columns and their relative defaults. I'm not sure
Nice.
I've also been working on something like that - for a resource that
has some local fields. Mine was just a "quick get it working" until I
could get the HyRes stuff working, so I'm guessing mine is far more
ugly. So I'd love to have a look at what you've got there :)
Taryn
On Aug 10, 2:53
20 matches
Mail list logo
