Bug 802 - [Chameleon - Widget] Extent attributes widgetstyle & widgetclass vs labelstyle & labelclass
: [Chameleon - Widget] Extent attributes widgetstyle & widgetclass vs labelsty...
Status: NEW
: Chameleon
Documentation
: 1.99
: PC Windows 2000
: P2 normal
: FUTURE
Assigned To:
:
: requires Design Decision
:
:
:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2004-10-29 15:43 by
Modified: 2004-11-04 14:34 (History)


Attachments


Note

You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Description From 2004-10-29 15:43:23
For the Extent widget which can be classified as a Label widget. Has two parse
of attributes that seem to do the same thing.

One from the Label attribute group: 
* LableClass: The CSS class to control the rendering of this label.

* LableStyle: The CSS style to apply to this label.

Two from the extent widget it self:

* WidgetClass: The CSS class to control the style of the extent text.  The
default is CWCExtentWidgetClass 

* WidgetStyle: The CSS style to control the style of the extent text.  The
default is none.

Is there a diference in there purpose for the extent widget. Currently I do not
see a difference. I would prefer that WidgetClass and WidgetStyle attributes be
removed so that only the labelclass and labelstyle are used.
------- Comment #1 From 2004-10-29 21:29:02 -------
Changed target to 1.99 RC 1.
------- Comment #2 From 2004-11-01 09:12:08 -------
yes there is a difference.  There are two parts to the extent widget, a label
and the actual extent.  The extent is normally output as a static text value
styled by 'widgetclass' and 'widgetstyle' but in JSAPI mode it is actually a
textbox and uses the same classes.  Labelstyle and labelclass are used by the
Label attribute group.

I would like to actually remove the Label attribute group from most, if not all,
widgets as it serves almost no purpose in most cases (at least not one that
cannot be accomplished by other means).  However, I'm not sure if we should make
this change now or post 2.0?
------- Comment #3 From 2004-11-01 09:38:21 -------
I vote for making any "sweeping" changes to how we handle/include attribute 
groups post-2.0. If they are not doing any "harm" being there in their current 
way, then I'd leave them as is at this time. 

I'm getting the feeling we need to have a significant relook at the attribute 
groups in general.
------- Comment #4 From 2004-11-01 14:01:42 -------
ok I agree with both paul and darren. lets change this bug to a documentation
issue. :) Jeff, please make sure comment #2 explanation is found in the widget
docs. 

changeing component from Widget to Documentation