Thanks David (H K) - I haven't worked with collections before -
thanks for bringing them to my attention. My big idea was to - on the
fly - have the user be able to exclude any color listed - as if red
in the div's above were replaced with a variable that could change
on the user's whim. So,
I can't really follow your second paragraph as I don't see the logic of
including something red when not-red is selected. But, in regard to
your first paragraph, I think you get what you want by just preselecting
all facet values, and allowing the user to _uncheck_ red if they want to
exclude
David - You are right about the illogic of the second paragraph - that
is a major criticism of that approach.
But I don't think selecting all and deselecting say red works any
differently. I put together a sample database and html to
illustrate: So all five colors start off selected and all
David - You are right about the illogic of the second paragraph - that
is a major criticism of that approach.
But I don't think selecting all and deselecting say red works any
differently. I put together a sample database and html to
illustrate: So all five colors start off selected and all
David - Thank you for further clarifying the issue. I suppose that
including the ability to add a NOT operation adds SQL levels of
complexity that sort of defeat the whole point of Exhibit.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. - Jim
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
lbjvg wrote:
David - Thank you for further clarifying the issue. I suppose that
including the ability to add a NOT operation adds SQL levels of
complexity that sort of defeat the whole point of Exhibit.
Thanks for the interesting discussion. - Jim
You could also create a new kind of
perhaps we could introduce an ex:negate=true attribute to the facet
tag, if only we could figure out which negation semantics we wanted.
One is for the checked values to denote the ones you are _not_ asking
for---essentially, to invert the role of checked/not checked in the
facet.
