On 12/11/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an interesting idea, but I think it's important to remember
> the as_p(), as_table() and as_ul() shortcut methods are just
> *shortcuts*. There's nothing stopping a developer from writing a
> custom method on a Form, nor is there an
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On 12/10/06, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What if instead of adding various as_* methods that we have a
>> FormFormatter class that determines how the form displays. The
>> _html_output and as_* methods would become FormFormatters. Formatter
>> could be a p
On 12/10/06, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What if instead of adding various as_* methods that we have a
> FormFormatter class that determines how the form displays. The
> _html_output and as_* methods would become FormFormatters. Formatter
> could be a parameter to the Form construc
Lachlan Cannon wrote:
> Lakin Wecker wrote:
> > as_dl() gets a +1 from me. I've used definition lists for forms and
> > prefer it over tables. :)
>
> Maybe there needs to be an easy hook for people to specify their own way of
> laying a form out. It seems the as_ methods are gonna keep growing an
On 12/7/06, Waylan Limberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But looking at the code, the error string is passed in first
> regardless of whether `errors_on_separate_row` or not. Perhaps
> `_html_output()` should use the optional mapping key for string
> substitution [1].
Hey, that's a really good sug
Adrian, excellent job abstracting the common code into
`Form._html_output()`. Now, anyone can write there own `as_method()`
as a one-liner - with one minor problem...
On 12/7/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/1/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So maybe an as
On 11/30/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A new Form class' default representation (that is goes out of `print f`)
> is an HTML table. For those who cares about that proverbial 'semantics'
> thing this looks wrong. From the practical point of view it's also not
> very convenient sinc
On 12/1/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So maybe an as_dl() method needs to go in?
With as_dl(), how would error messages be displayed?
Adrian
--
Adrian Holovaty
holovaty.com | djangoproject.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message be
On 12/5/06, Lachlan Cannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lakin Wecker wrote:
> > as_dl() gets a +1 from me. I've used definition lists for forms and
> > prefer it over tables. :)
>
> Maybe there needs to be an easy hook for people to specify their own way of
> laying a form out. It seems the as_ m
Lakin Wecker wrote:
> as_dl() gets a +1 from me. I've used definition lists for forms and
> prefer it over tables. :)
Maybe there needs to be an easy hook for people to specify their own way of
laying a form out. It seems the as_ methods are gonna keep growing and growing.
--
Lach
Personal: h
as_dl() gets a +1 from me. I've used definition lists for forms and prefer
it over tables. :)
Lakin
On 12/1/06, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 12/1/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I agree that laying out a form with CSS is not a very clean thing. But
> > it do
On 12/1/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that laying out a form with CSS is not a very clean thing. But
> it does give you a way to change the layout with just CSS (like moving
> labels to the left or to the top of a field). And with tables you can't
> do it in practice.
It
Bah. I wish all the browsers supported "display: table-cell", that
would take care of all of this nonsense.
On 12/1/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Brantley Harris wrote:
> > Maybe good practice, but not practical. I'd love to not have to use
> > tables. But practical CSS just
Brantley Harris wrote:
> Maybe good practice, but not practical. I'd love to not have to use
> tables. But practical CSS just isn't there yet.
Many web sites prove otherwise though :-)
> Yes, tables aren't
> good for general layout, but they still have their uses, and forms are
> a prime examp
Brantley Harris wrote:
> Maybe good practice, but not practical. I'd love to not have to use
> tables. But practical CSS just isn't there yet. Yes, tables aren't
> good for general layout, but they still have their uses, and forms are
> a prime example.
>
A table's uses generally consist of
Maybe good practice, but not practical. I'd love to not have to use
tables. But practical CSS just isn't there yet. Yes, tables aren't
good for general layout, but they still have their uses, and forms are
a prime example.
On 11/30/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would say not
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> I like the output,
> but I can definitely appreciate the argument for using s instead.
I would say not using tables for layout may count as a good practice
like encouraging clean URLs, proper distinction of GET and POST etc.
--~--~-~--~~~---
On 11/30/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A new Form class' default representation (that is goes out of `print f`)
> is an HTML table. For those who cares about that proverbial 'semantics'
> thing this looks wrong. From the practical point of view it's also not
> very convenient sinc
18 matches
Mail list logo
