yes, and I think ultimately this is what the spec should say as well, since nothing else makes much sense.
On 2/16/08, David Glazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That makes sense for well-formed gadgets. > > The corner case I was asking about is when the XML asks for concatenation of > sections, at least one of which is type=url. Specifically, in your example, > consider appending either: > <Content type="url" view="maximized" src=" > http://yyy.com/type-url-gadget.xml <http://x.com/type-url-gadget.xml> > "></Content> > or: > <Content type="html" view="maximized">YYY</Content> > > I believe either of those should result in parse errors. Is that right? > > - dG > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Bruno Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -- ~Kevin If you received this email by mistake, please delete it, cancel your mail account, destroy your hard drive, silence any witnesses, and burn down the building that you're in.
