showing absolute inclusions in forms is confusing -- it tempts users to re-edit the same card over and over again in contexts where it appears to be, well, contextual (and therefore a different card each time).
implementation is as simple as a little regexp tweak in #edit_slot (unless we find out this has unwanted consequences. Still somewhat concerned that there may be non-simple relative inclusions in play in structured editing somewhere)
This ticket was originally about CSS (see italicized text below). I'm proposing we solve that problem and others by having forms only handling inclusions beginning with "+".
If you look at the HTML of http://test.dwagn.org/new/type_with_simple_inclusion_in_form you'll see that the simple included card "Menu" has the CSS class "RIGHT-menu".
Should be "SELF-menu", yes?
When/if this is fixed, make sure to update http://fortbraggcompost.wagn.org/wagn/*css (div.RIGHT-make_link_visible_to_admin)
looks like it's currently hard-coded. Does not have type class.
--Ethan McCutchen.....Sat Apr 16 18:26:58 -0700 2011
so, make this into a ticket?
--John Abbe.....Sun Apr 17 05:22:51 -0700 2011
hmmmmm. Should we even render absolute inclusions in forms? I think I would propose that we should not. To be honest, I would be ok with only rendering inclusions beginning with "+" for now and waiting until we have a better proof / understanding of need.
It seems like showing fields for absolute inclusions is just begging for data confusion, no?
With this simplification, implementation may be super easy (and may make the inclusion editor easier, too).
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-04-03 18:29:19 +0000
renamed. was formerly fix CSS class of absolute inclusions in multi-edit. Can change back if we don't agree.
--Ethan McCutchen.....2013-04-03 18:30:45 +0000
This applies only when editing, right? Then wouldn't the CSS class still need to be fixed for styling in other views?
the css class was only a problem in edit views, where it was hard-coded.
hearing no objections, I'm going to tag this with a release.
Looks good - closing. And it looks like http://fortbraggcompost.wagn.org/ doesn't exist any more (see first comment in the discussion here), is that right?