I got a really strange message back when I originally tried to send
these two emails, so if it sent twice, apologies ...
> I think the first three of your questions below would become moot
> if you were to give users the ability to add their own style sheet
> so that they can override the defaults for size, colour etc.
>
I'm not sure I want to do this ... This is covered by my new policy
of "less options" (more of the Apple way of "give you want you need,
not what you think you need").
> I very much prefer the shorter wostrings with their bindings
> displayed. That way it will make much more visual sense because it
> is shown in context, eg:
>
> Dear [user.firstname], your auction ended on [auction.closedate]
> with [auction.bidders..ount] bidders.
>
Yes, in this particular case, inline is much nicer. In the
standalone case, though, it looks a little weird, partially because
you can't change the margins of a span so it ends up running up
against. I'm going to try removing the background and border off of
it and just make it red and it see if it looks ok inline'd, because,
generally speaking, I like the inline also ...
> I like the idea of differentiating components, but rather than
> using colours, why not use images? I'd be happy to develop some
> images, like
> <pastedGraphic.png>
> and
> <pastedGraphic.png>
> for wo:if and wo:not and
> <pastedGraphic.png>
> for repetitions etc (gosh, they look familiar!). What format do
> you need? PNG?
>
One of the problems is that I have no idea how to make an image URL
inside of the embedded Browser component that references an image
that resides inside a plugin URL. I wouldn't spend the time making
these until I figure that one out, which is not a particularly high
priority (since I'm not sure it's even possible to do). I'm actually
going to use green for conditionals and leave repetitions the blue
color for now. Conditionals in particular seem to be important for
getting your bearings inside the outline (especially in compact mode).
> I think a bindings editor a la WO Builder would be terrific. The
> advantage of this approach is that you can look at the whole list
> of possible bindings and choose the approach you want, eg count/
> index or list/item for a repetition. And while I'm dreaming, it
> would be good if it appeared somewhere else, like in the WOD
> editing area, which I never use. And if it stayed there while you
> scrolled around the other panes, you could then compare those
> bindings to another component. Oh, and continuing the dream: you
> could make the bindings red when they are not satisfied.
>
Of course, you're going to be pro-anything that is like WOB :)
Incidentally, if you're not using the WOD Editor, you're seriously
missing out (or at least inline bindings w/ completion + validation
turned on). It can already provide you the list of possible bindings
via completion as well as validation against API files to tell you
what required bindings you are missing.
ms
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Sun Oct 07 2007 - 17:15:57 EDT