Sylvain Wallez wrote:
Example : <wt:widget id="foo"> <wi:styling type="textarea" rows="10"/> </wt:widget>
The "type" attribute defines the "style type" and all other attributes are dependent on this type (and here, copied as is).
What do you think ?
Including the style element directly rather than referring to it with a type attribute leaves for more future expansion room and won't mess up namespaces if you include direct output elements in the <wi:styling/> element, IMHO.
I think I wasn't clear : this applies well to _flat_ styling configurations (i.e. a simple list of name/value pairs) as it doesn't require an additional nested element (reduced verbosity). But this does not prevent the use of nested elements in wi:styling when needed (although I haven't encountered this need up to now).
Furthermore, use of attributes ensures uniqueness of styling type, which is not guaranteed with nested elements.
E.g. what happens if we write : <wt:widget id="foo"> <wi:styling> <textarea rows="10"/> <password size="20"/> </wi:styling> </wt:widget>
Will this widget be rendered as a textarea or as a password ? With "textarea" or "password" being defined by the unique "type" attribute, this problem cannot happen.
Or do we want <wi:styling> to be able to hold different styling directives and let the layout stylesheet decide which one is best ? Mmmh... too much magic...
Sylvain
-- Sylvain Wallez Anyware Technologies http://www.apache.org/~sylvain http://www.anyware-tech.com { XML, Java, Cocoon, OpenSource }*{ Training, Consulting, Projects } Orixo, the opensource XML business alliance - http://www.orixo.com
