Re: Menu questions

Jeff Turner wrote, On 05/08/2003 14.57:

> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 12:11:15PM +0200, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
...
>>How different is this from my JS version of the collapsed menus?
> 
> Two differences:
> 
> 1) index.html had no visible child pages.  In JS, it would.

Hmmm, it wouldn't IIUC if we made it configurable if we wanted some 
entries open at the beginning, like a (openmenus=all|none|first) in 
skinconf.

For example, we would have:

  <openmenus>none</openmenus>

and the first page will not show any opne menus.

> 2) The parent entry in the menu, 'Index', loads a page when clicked.  In
> JS, the entry would trigger an open/close action, not load a page.
> 
> http://cvs.apache.org/~jefft/forrest/samples/hidden-menus-site/
> 
> This is a minor limitation with the JS, that menu entries cannot double
> as both page links and parents of other entries.  Either a menu entry is
> a page link, or an open/close menu category.

Not necessarily, this is what the current JS does, but it can be easily 
amended. If it also links to a page, there is no need to use javascript 
at all, as the linked page will simply show the "opened" version. Now 
that I think of it, it should already work, have to try it.

I'm just trying to unify the menu-handling approach to one only, so that 
we don't overlap, and maybe we have less work to do.

What should we do?

1 - keep both implementations with common config semantics
2 - keep only the javascript version

IMHO two seems better from a quick thought, as it's faster to implement, 
easier to maintain, and more flashy, but I'm fine with either solution 
or even other solutions (like a  <at> open attribute in site.xml, but would 
have to think how to do it).

--

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken <at> apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------