[ xframe-Feature Requests-978536 ] Optional Attribute Detail section
"SourceForge.net" <[email protected]> Tue, 06 Jul 2004 14:08:09 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.xframe.xsddoc |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Feature Requests item #978536, was opened at 2004-06-23 21:03 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bingorette You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=454394&aid=978536&group_id=48863 Category: layout Group: xsddoc-0.5-beta Status: Open Priority: 3 Submitted By: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody) Assigned to: Kurt Riede (kriede) Summary: Optional Attribute Detail section Initial Comment: Hello, Thank you for the new version (0.5) - it fixed what I needed! I would like to suggest something: could we hide by default the "Attribute Detail" section when it's within an element (it could stay that way for an Attribute group)? At first glance, the "Attribute Summary" is sufficient for most cases. If one wants to get more details on the syntax, he/she could then popup (or whatever) the detailed version for the attributes. Currently, the "Source" section seems to be so far down the HTML page that you either have to scroll up to get to the Source hyperlink, or scroll way down to get to the bottom of the page. Thanks ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: bing (bingorette) Date: 2004-07-06 21:08 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=1078122 Hello again, Actually, the Attribute details section should always be there, as long as it can be collapsed by default or not, instead of being expanded all the time. About your comment on the "Source" section - it's true that our internal application is aimed at programmers, and not "humans"! ;-) Seriously, between looking at the model description and reading the source section, there is not that much difference (if you know XML schemas) and my preference goes to the source (but that's just me). This is also why we are trying to manually incorporate images as part of the documentation (see my other post on the forum) in order to provide something that provides a different view on the model. Thx, Di. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Kurt Riede (kriede) Date: 2004-06-25 13:34 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=484961 well, we could introduce a flag to indicate wether the details should be available or not; I'll think about it. Concerning the Source section: What is your suggestion how to place it? (The sence of the documentation is, not to read the source, b but a resolved and human readable description, so why give it more precedence than the documentation?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=454394&aid=978536&group_id=48863 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training. Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com