You're correct that for a type="url" view, the Content section is empty and
no concatention is done. Consider the case where the gadget has a mixture of
type="url" and type="html" Content sections. Then concatenation is done for
the HTML views and is ignored for the URL views.
Say for example that you have 3 views: mobile, profile, maximized. Consider
the case where you wanted to share content between the mobile / profile
views and use a small amount of CSS to style them differently. Then finally
use type=url for maximized to give yourself more flexibility by accessing
your own srever directly. Here's how you could write the gadget:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<Module>
<ModulePrefs title="Title"/>" +
<Content type="html" view="mobile">
MobileCSS
</Content>
<Content type="html" view="profile">
ProfileCSS
</Content>
<Content type="html" view="mobile,profile">
SharedHTML
</Content>
<Content type="url" view="maximized" src="http://x.com/type-url-gadget.xml
"></Content>
</Module>
The Output of the Gadget Render is different for each view. Here's what it
would be:
Mobile view = MobileCSS + SharedHTML
Profile view = ProfileCSS + SharedHTML
Maximized view = <iframe src="http://x.com/type-url-gadget.xml";></iframe>
On Feb 16, 2008 3:41 PM, David Glazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
> >
>
