In other MXML components, you can do stuff like use curly brackets to embed scripting, use "
", and other stuff like that in their text and/or label attributes. Apparently mx:Buttons' label attributes are so locked down that the normal suggestions for other components aren't working. I could try just setting the labels in the main script of an MXML file or something, but that's sloppy programming if it can be avoided (the labels' values are going to be constant in this case). Is there not some way to put a line break in the attribute in MXML?
As for using "
", that gave me a line break at least, but any text to the right of that sequence disappeared. This makes me think there may be a way to make that work, but so far, I haven't found such a way.
Thanks!
EDIT: One thing though: I don't want to do anything that depends on the particular canvas or panel or whatever that the button's on to be actually created or anything like that. Latency, in that case, could cause the user to see the label change.
Alright, here's basically the answer to this question:
Adobe Flex: Word Wrap in Button Label (thread)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/1654948/279112 (answer I'm referring to)
The only problem here is that, even though newlines and word-wrapping both work in his example, they don't do that great of a job of working in conjunction with one another. It's good enough for what I'm currently needing to do though, so I'll improve on that later. Credit goes to danii and Alex for answering this initially, as well as to Christian Nunciato for providing this particular form of the answer.
Related
As far as I understand, not rendering the HTML for an element at all, or adding display:none, seem to have exactly the same behavior: both make the element disappear and not interact with the HTML.
I am trying to disable and hide a checkbox. So the total amount of HTML is small; I can't imagine performance could be an issue.
As far as writing server code goes, the coding work is about the same.
Given these two options, is one better practice than the other? Or does it not matter which I use at all?
As far as I understand, not rendering the HTML for an element at all, or adding display:none, seem to have exactly the same behavior: both make the element disappear and not interact with the HTML.
No, these two options don’t have "exactly the same behavior".
If you hide an element with CSS (display:none), it will still be rendered for
user agents that don’t support CSS (e.g., text browsers), and
user agents that overwrite your CSS (e.g., user style sheets).
So if you don’t need it, don’t include it.
If, for whatever reason, you have to include the element, but it’s not relevant for your document/users (no matter in which presentation), then use the hidden attribute. By using this attribute, you give the information on the HTML level, hence CSS support is not needed/relevant.
You might want to use display:none in addition (this is what many CSS supporting user agents do anyway, but it’s useful for CSS-capable user agents that don’t support the hidden attribute).
You could also use the aria-hidden state in addition, which could be useful for user agents that support WAI-ARIA but not the hidden attribute.
I mean do you need that checkbox? If not then .hide() is just brushing things under the carpet. You are making your HTML cluttered as well as your CSS. However, if it needs to be there then sure, but if you can do without the checkbox then I would not have it in the HTML.
Keep it simple and readable.
The only positive thing I see in hiding it is in the case where you might want to add it back in later as a result of a button being clicked or something else activating it in the page. Otherwise it is just making your code needlessly longer.
For such a tiny scenario the result would be practically the same. But hiding the controls with CSS is IMO not something that you want to make a habit of.
It is always a good idea to make both the code and its output efficient to the point that is practical. So if it's easy for you to not include some controls in the output by adding a little condition everything can be managed tidily, try to do so. Of course this would not extend to the part of your code that receives input, because there you should always be ready to handle any arbitrary data (at least for a public app).
On the other hand, in some cases the code that produces the output is hard to modify; in particular, giving it the capability to determine what to do could involve doing damage in the form of following bad practices: perhaps add a global variable, or else modify/override several functions so that the condition can be transferred through. It's not unreasonable in that case to just add a little CSS in order to again, achieve the solution in a short and localized manner.
It's also interesting to note that in some cases the decision can turn out to be based on hard external factors. For example, a pretty basic mechanism of detecting spambots is to include a field that appears no different in HTML than the others but is made invisible with CSS. In this situation a spambot might fill in the invisible field and thus give itself away.
The confusion point here is this: Why would you ever use display: none instead of simply not render something?
To which the answer is: because you're doing it client side!
"display: none" is better practice when you're doing client side manipulations where the element might need to disappear or reappear without an additional trip to the server. In that case, it is still part of the logical structure of the page and easier to access and manipulate it than remove (and then store in memory in Javascript) and insert it.
However if you're using a server-side heavy framework and always have the liberty of not rendering it, yes, display:none is rather pointless.
Go with "display:none" if the client has to do the work, and manage its relation to the DOM
Go with not rendering it if every time the rendered/not rendered decision changes, the server is generating fresh (and fairly immutable) HTML each time.
I'm not a fan of adding markup to your HTML that cannot be seen and serves no purpose. You didn't provide a single benefit of doing that in your question and so the simple answer is: If you don't need a checkbox to be part of the page, then don't include it in your markup.
I suspect that a hidden checkbox will not add any noticeable time to the download or work by the server. So I agree it's not really a consideration. However, many pages do have extra content (comments, viewstate, etc.) and it can all add up. So anyone with the attitude that they will go ahead and add content that is not needed and never seen by the user, I would expect them to create pages that are noticeably slower overall.
Now, you haven't provided any information about why you might want to include markup that is not needed. Although you said nothing about client script, the one case where I might leave elements in a page that are hidden is when I'm writing client script to remove them. In this case, I may hide() it and leave in the markup. One reason for that is that I could easily show it again if needed.
That's my answer, but I think you'd get a much better answer if you described what considerations you had for including markup on the page that no one will see. Surely, it must offer some benefit that you haven't disclosed or you would have no reason to do it.
In Google Chrome, you can use shortcuts for elements with contenteditable='true':
CTRL + B : Set the highlighted text to bold, for example
What happens under the hood is, the <b> tag is attached or removed to the marked phrase, word whatever.
How is this done? Where do "they" know from, whether the element is already set to bold, and, primary question, where it is located?
I am asking this because i can't get rid of this problem, mentioned earlier today:
Get the highlighted text position in .html() and .text()
Edit:
I tried the following
Rich-Text-Editing
But first, it won't load correctly, but this should be caused by my own failure.
Second, for learning purposes, i would like to implent my own minified version.
As i am really at JavaScript, i could not figure out how this is be done.
document.getSelection() / window.getSelection() should work for whatever you'd like to do with the selected stuff.
Element styles get inherited. How this is kept track of depends on the CSS implementation.
Taking a look at the source code of Chrome might pretty much help.
I have a little problem with an upload-form within an other form (call it data-form).
I know it is not possible to put a form into an other.
So I would need to put it after my data-form.
But I need the upload-form controls in the middle of my data-form because of optical and structural reasons.
The file-upload should also perform other actions and not the same than the data-form.
So any idea how can I make the upload-form after my data-form but visible in it or any other ideas to handle this?
I am using javascirpt and php also.
thanks and best wishes for 2011!
br,chris
I know it is not possible to put a form into an other.
Nesting HTML forms is not valid HTML and results into undefined behavior which could vary between browsers. Here's a similar post.
You could leave some space in your design and then nest the form (visually) in the other one with CSS and absolute positioning..
Apart from position: absolute that might work depending on your layout, I had the idea of using a Flash based uploader like SWFUpload. That process works separately from the surrounding form. However, it creates a dependency on Flash and does not degrade gracefully (i.e. if Flash is not present, it does not work at all).
Having the HTML of a webpage, what would be the easiest strategy to get the text that's visible on the correspondent page? I have thought of getting everything that's between the <a>..</a> and <p>...</p> but that is not working that well.
Keep in mind as that this is for a school project, I am not allowed to use any kind of external library (the idea is to have to do the parsing myself). Also, this will be implemented as the HTML of the page is downloaded, that is, I can't assume I already have the whole HTML page downloaded. It has to be showing up the extracted visible words as the HTML is being downloaded.
Also, it doesn't have to work for ALL the cases, just to be satisfatory most of the times.
I am not allowed to use any kind of external library
This is a poor requirement for a ‘software architecture’ course. Parsing HTML is extremely difficult to do correctly—certainly way outside the bounds of a course exercise. Any naïve approach you come up involving regex hacks is going to fall over badly on common web pages.
The software-architecturally correct thing to do here is use an external library that has already solved the problem of parsing HTML (such as, for .NET, the HTML Agility Pack), and then iterate over the document objects it generates looking for text nodes that aren't in ‘invisible’ elements like <script>.
If the task of grabbing data from web pages is of your own choosing, to demonstrate some other principle, then I would advise picking a different challenge, one you can usefully solve. For example, just changing the input from HTML to XML might allow you to use the built-in XML parser.
Literally all the text that is visible sounds like a big ask for a school project, as it would depend not only on the HTML itself, but also any in-page or external styling. One solution would be to simply strip the HTML tags from the input, though that wouldn't strictly meet your requirements as you have stated them.
Assuming that near enough is good enough, you could make a first pass to strip out the content of entire elements which you know won't be visible (such as script, style), and a second pass to remove the remaining tags themselves.
i'd consider writing regex to remove all html tags and you should be left with your desired text. This can be done in Javascript and doesn't require anything special.
I know this is not exactly what you asked for, but it can be done using Regular Expressions:
//javascript code
//should (could) work in C# (needs escaping for quotes) :
h = h.replace(/<(?:"[^"]*"|'[^']*'|[^'">])*>/g,'');
This RegExp will remove HTML tags, notice however that you first need to remove script,link,style,... tags.
If you decide to go this way, I can help you with the regular expressions needed.
HTML 5 includes a detailed description of how to build a parser. It is probably more complicated then you are looking for, but it is the recommended way.
You'll need to parse every DOM element for text, and then detect whether that DOM element is visible (el.style.display == 'block' or 'inline'), and then you'll need to detect whether that element is positioned in such a manner that it isn't outside of the viewable area of the page. Then you'll need to detect the z-index of each element and the background of each element in order to detect if any overlapping is hiding some text.
Basically, this is impossible to do within a month's time.
I just wondered and wanted to gather together in one place all missing features of our beloved html form elements.
One example could be missing of horizontal scrollbar in a listbox. But I am sure there are a lot of features we would like to see in our form elements by default.
One missing feature per answer please.
Thank you.
Date/Time picker controls, rather than always trying to manipulate a textbox, selects, or some other controls to create them.
Hell, they miss so many features, I wouldn't know where to begin! But here goes:
(Missing in HTML 4, don't know about 5)
Full visual customizability (background colours, borders, and text colours) for all elements (including checkboxes, radio buttons, and select elements)
Native input validation (without needing JS) for text inputs: Numeric only, alphabetic characters only, regular expression
An open enumeration, a "SELECT you can type in" would be handy in some situations.
If pretty much everyone, but not quite, answers the question in one of ten or 15 different ways, you have to either force everyone to type in the answer or have an "other" option with a separate text field.
The lack of intrinsic support for multiple windows (or even just modal dialogs) is ridiculous.
Think of the tens of thousands of programmer-hours wasted on acrobatic manipulation of div elements just to implement a UI that would be trivially easy in a desktop app.
It's somewhat pointless to list what is missing in HTML 4 since so much has been fixed in HTML 5. And then, most of us can't list what is missing from HTML 5 because we are not familiar enough with it yet.