I'm confused -- don't type=url gadgets have empty <Content> sections? If so, it seems like concatenating them wouldn't make any sense. Maybe we should only support Content-concatenation if they're all type=html, and just return a not_parseable error if any of them are type=url?
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Bruno Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2008 4:38 AM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > However if shindig / opensocial supports those 2 things, you would > > expect as a gadget writer that you could mix those 2 types (html and > > url), and have a url block for say 'default', and a html content block > > for <whatever views will be defined by the social gadget spec> > > > I was thinking yesterday "How long before someone wants to use type=html > content for the profile and type=url for maximized mode?". Guess you've > answered my question. > > The patch that I'm writing works just as Kevin described it. The only > difference is that in my case, the winning attribute, is the first one > associated with the view, not the last. This is equivalent functionality - > I > can't think of scenario where one is much better than the other. Since you > read the spec usually in order, it seems natural to look for the first > instance rather than have to read backwards to find the controlling > attribute. I'm open to suggestions on changing it. >
