On Friday, 7 March 2014 22:58:56 UTC+1, Albert Cervera Areny wrote: > > 2014-03-07 19:53 GMT+01:00 Emma <[email protected] <javascript:>>: > > Hi Guillem, > > > > Well, there have been a few changes since the fork was initiated since > there > > was no willingness to make the changes inside the core, why not take a > few > > more liberties: > > - we are not simply talking about <div>'s but about <div>'s and > <fieldset>'s > > - extra "former <tr>'s" have been removed (no need for fixed rows in a > fluid > > grid) > > - switch the "xexpand" js resize code with a lighter one > > > > Since some people were clearly interested in "intermediary modes": > > - I took the liberty to link labels of fields to the field inside a > single > > <div> to allow them to stay together in intermediary modes (heavy code > but > > only executed once at form creation) > > I think this is the kind of things Cédric was trying to note which are > going to give bug reports. You cannot safely link labels to fields > automatically because Tryton allows much more complex configurations > than "label - field" structure. You'll maybe end up with something > that renders correctly in many cases but not in all cases, and Cédric > is trying to find a solution that works always correctly. I think this > is the main point here. >
I don't really see what's complicated or can bring bugs in there. Two fields cannot have the same name, so if two elements have the same name attribute, it's a label and a widget. All widgets don't have labels in front of them, there are strings, notebooks and more, but 2 form items, one next to each other, with the same name attribute are bound to be widget and label, that's how I determine what can be gathered in a same HTML element. If I'm wrong, please explain to me because I don't see any other possible case. > Maybe when your proposal is finished or almost finished we see that a > small hint can be added in the view definition that allows everything > to work correctly but it seems to me that it is too soon to know that. > That's how I see it too. It is not "production ready" yet in the sense everything doesn't yet render like I'd like it to. > > Screenshots look pretty good! > Thanks :-)
