Gary Poster wrote:
On Apr 4, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Hi there,
* does anyone have any objections if I make eggs for various zc.*
packages? In svn, this involves adding a setup.py to these packages,
and to add a __init__.py to the zc package that they contain (which
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
Jim also suggests the new, as-of-this-moment-no-longer-secret http://
download.zope.org/distribution/ as a possible location instead. All
Zope committers have the appropriate privileges to scp to this
directory. That's where he will be doing his egg work, at least
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
* the setup.py I'll create will only work with setuptools installed;
is this a problem?
Not from us. You'd maybe get even more warm fuzzies from people by
making it not require setuptools, but that limitation doesn't
Tres Seaver wrote:
* the setup.py I'll create will only work with setuptools installed;
is this a problem?
Not from us. You'd maybe get even more warm fuzzies from people by
making it not require setuptools, but that limitation doesn't bother us.
Okay, good. Warm fuzzies are nice, but I
zope.schema.Set currently only accepts sets.Set objects.
Anyone object if I change zope.schema.Set to accept py2.4 builtin
sets, or if I add a zope.schema.FrozenSet? I don't see any
reasonable objections, so I'll probably check this in within a couple
of hours if there is no dissent.
On Apr 5, 2006, at 11:03 AM, Martijn Faassen wrote:
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Martijn Faassen wrote:
Gary Poster wrote:
[snip]
Jim also suggests the new, as-of-this-moment-no-longer-secret
http://
download.zope.org/distribution/ as a possible
Looks like it only appears if you run the functional tests separately.
$ ~/z4i/bin/python test.py -f
Running zope.app.testing.functional.Functional tests:
Set up zope.app.testing.functional.Functional in 5.218 seconds.
/home/gary/z4i/var/src/zope3/src/zope/app/apidoc/ifacemodule/
Gary Poster wrote:
FWIW, I seem to recall that IE doesn't handle form fields whose `id`
and `name` are different very well. Can anyone verify, from memory
or otherwise?
I can verify that it (at least) once had that problem. I've been bitten
by it within the last two years. I don't know
Hmm, I'm inclined to doubt whether IE expects the id and name
attributes to be identical. Distinct values for id and name
shouldn't be a problem, afaik.
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/forms/formsoverview.asp
- Kamal
--
Kamal Gill - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Kamal Gill wrote:
Hmm, I'm inclined to doubt whether IE expects the id and name
attributes to be identical. Distinct values for id and name
shouldn't be a problem, afaik
Wait, someone used shouldn't be a problem in reference to IE? :-)
As Benji said, this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gary Poster wrote:
On Apr 5, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Kamal Gill wrote:
Hmm, I'm inclined to doubt whether IE expects the id and name
attributes to be identical. Distinct values for id and name
shouldn't be a problem, afaik
Wait, someone used
Tres Seaver wrote:
I'm pretty sure that at least some flavors of IE were fussy about 'id'
attributes which were not valid according the HTML DTD's; I therefore
quit giving form fields an 'id' attribute long ago, just because I
couldn't keep it straight.
Then you can't have a label for that
12 matches
Mail list logo
