[pmwiki-users] Input recipe

Joachim Durchholz jo at durchholz.org
Thu Jun 23 14:31:58 CDT 2005


Patrick R. Michaud wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 12:37:07AM +0200, Dominique Faure wrote:
> 
>>At Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:13 AM [GMT+1=CET], Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 11:12:06PM +0200, Joachim Durchholz wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>I just finished documenting the Input recipe on
>>>>http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/Cookbook/Input .
>>>>
>>>>I wish to invite everybody with an interest in setting up CGI forms on
>>>>PmWiki to review this recipe.
>>>
>>>Hmm, I was thinking of using "(:input ... :)" as a possible markup for
>>>the edit form.  Should we see at all about merging these ideas together,
>>>or should they remain strictly separate?

Dunno. (:input ...:) just seemed the most straightforward markup for 
what I was doing. I don't know much about the edit form, so I can't say 
whether a merge would be fruitful.
Anybody got a pointer so I can take a look?

>>Joachim, could we eventually contribute to your code to have it available 
>>faster?

Sure. See the roadmap: PHP infrastructure first, then fill-in-the-tables :-)

I had planned to do the infrastructure myself, but I certainly won't 
object to help. It's not going to be very much code though (LoC should 
figure in the low hundreds), so the overhead for organising it might 
exceed the actual gain.

> Part of me feels that we should go ahead and use the HTML
> control names instead of inventing new ones (e.g., "hidden" instead
> of "data", etc.).

Same with me.

I decided against that though, for several reasons:

1) Wiki markup isn't HTML anyway, so the argument for reusing HTML 
terminology isn't too strong in the first place

2) HTML terminology is inconsistent. It's "checked" for checkboxes and 
"selected" for options, for example. I dimly recall some other 
non-niceties... though I agree that my terminology may be less than 
consistent, too; the spec could profit from a review of that aspect.

3) In the case of "data", the initial idea was to put it in $_SESSION 
and not use hidden fields at all. Calling the control "hidden" would 
then refer just to the non-preferred implementation.

Regards,
Jo



More information about the pmwiki-users mailing list