Section in screen

[Jacques Le Roux]

Hi,

Maybe it's a stupid question. I did not think much about it.
Here we go : why do we need to have a section tag in the screen tag ?
Is there an intention to have more than one section some day or is it a parsing reason ?

Jacques

[Adrian Crum]

I always wondered that too. The widget code allows only one <section>
element within a <screen> element.

-Adrian

Jacques Le Roux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe it's a stupid question. I did not think much about it.
> Here we go : why do we need to have a section tag in the screen tag ? Is
> there an intention to have more than one section some day or is it a
> parsing reason ?
>
> Jacques
>

[Bruno Busco]

I thought it was in order to have each section conditioned with a condition
tag. Isn't it?
-Bruno

2008/6/20 Adrian Crum <[hidden email]>:

> I always wondered that too. The widget code allows only one <section>
> element within a <screen> element.
>
> -Adrian
>
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maybe it's a stupid question. I did not think much about it.
>> Here we go : why do we need to have a section tag in the screen tag ? Is
>> there an intention to have more than one section some day or is it a parsing
>> reason ?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>>

[David E Jones]

It was a design decision to make the top-level of a screen consistent  
with sub-sections within the screen. Basically once you know about how  
a section is laid out you know how the screen is laid out and what the  
options are and what what.

Part of the original design that hasn't been implemented yet takes  
advantage of the section name attribute so you could do things  
externally with part of a screen, ie a single section, and not the  
whole thing. For example you could include a section from another  
screen instead of the whole thing. The top level section makes that  
pattern more versatile and consistent.

-David


On Jun 19, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> I always wondered that too. The widget code allows only one  
> <section> element within a <screen> element.
>
> -Adrian
>
> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Maybe it's a stupid question. I did not think much about it.
>> Here we go : why do we need to have a section tag in the screen  
>> tag ? Is there an intention to have more than one section some day  
>> or is it a parsing reason ?
>> Jacques

[Jacques Le Roux]

Thanks David,

Jacques

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

>
> It was a design decision to make the top-level of a screen consistent  
> with sub-sections within the screen. Basically once you know about how  
> a section is laid out you know how the screen is laid out and what the  
> options are and what what.
>
> Part of the original design that hasn't been implemented yet takes  
> advantage of the section name attribute so you could do things  
> externally with part of a screen, ie a single section, and not the  
> whole thing. For example you could include a section from another  
> screen instead of the whole thing. The top level section makes that  
> pattern more versatile and consistent.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 4:23 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
>
>> I always wondered that too. The widget code allows only one  
>> <section> element within a <screen> element.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>> Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Maybe it's a stupid question. I did not think much about it.
>>> Here we go : why do we need to have a section tag in the screen  
>>> tag ? Is there an intention to have more than one section some day  
>>> or is it a parsing reason ?
>>> Jacques
>