Hi Rick,
On 30.11.2013, at 15:07, Rick Frankel <r...@rickster.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 30, 2013 at 07:54:42AM +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
>> I don't thing the partial ones work - we should just make then
>> unchecked in export if there is nothing better. the grey dos not
>> convey the right information.
>
> I agree, but couldn't think of any other way. There are 3 other
> unicode options:
>
> 1. A box with an X (☒ U+2612 BALLOT BOX WITH X)
> 2. A bare (unboxed) X (✗ U+2717 BALLOT X)
> 3 A bare checkmark (✓ U+2713 CHECK MARK)
>
> I also found this character:
>
> U+237B ⍻ not check mark
>
> If you think one of those would work we could use it instead.
No, I don't think any of them does it.
>
>
>> My vote:
>> - Unicode characters as default
>> - Both active and inactive checkboxes as option for people who want
>> them, via a customize variable.
>> - Partial checkboxes should be shown as unchecked.
>
> I will implement the replacement of the ascii characters with the
> unicode and the look at the html checkbox options.
>
> FWIW, there are other issues w/ the active version besides the changes
> not being saved -- If you are using hierarchical list or rollups
> indicators ([x/y], [x%]), they will not be updated w/o some
> javascript.
Thank you Rick!
- Carsten
>
> rick
>>
>>
>> On 29.11.2013, at 17:11, Rick Frankel <r...@rickster.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-11-28 16:58, Matt Price wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Sebastien Vauban
>>>> <sva-n...@mygooglest.com> wrote:
>>>> Achim Gratz wrote:
>>>> Rick Frankel writes:
>>>> For xhtml compatibility, it would need to be 'checked="checked"'. I've
>>>> done a quick look at the html dtd, and i does look like input elements
>>>> are allowed outside of forms, but i would need to double
>>>> check... Also, the fallback to "[-]" for the partially checked state
>>>> is a bit inconsistent, perhaps changing background color or other
>>>> attributre of the checkbox would be better.
>>>> I'd much prefer if you'd be using character entities for that since you
>>>> can't do any input on the HTML anyway (WHITE MEDIUM SQUARE, SQUARE WITH
>>>> LOWER RIGHT DIAGONAL BLACK and BLACK MEDIUM SQUARE look like good
>>>> candidates). That probably makes it UTF-8 only since I don't think
>>>> these symbols are defined for plain (X)HTML, so for other encodings
>>>> things should probably stay as they are.
>>>> FWIW, here's what I do for the HTML export:
>>>> In JS:
>>>> #+begin_src js
>>>> $(function () {
>>>> $('li > code:contains("[X]")')
>>>> .parent()
>>>> .addClass('checked')
>>>> .end()
>>>> .remove();
>>>> $('li > code:contains("[-]")')
>>>> .parent()
>>>> .addClass('halfchecked')
>>>> .end()
>>>> .remove();
>>>> $('li > code:contains("[ ]")')
>>>> .parent()
>>>> .addClass('unchecked')
>>>> .end()
>>>> .remove();
>>>> });
>>>> #+end_src
>>>> In CSS:
>>>> #+begin_src css
>>>> li.checked {
>>>> list-style-image: url('../images/checked.png');
>>>> }
>>>> li.halfchecked {
>>>> list-style-image: url('../images/halfchecked.png');
>>>> }
>>>> li.unchecked {
>>>> list-style-image: url('../images/unchecked.png');
>>>> }
>>>> #+end_src
>>>> with 3 nice pictures of green V, red X, and blue || (line "pause" on
>>>> recorders).
>>>> so, I don't know if I'm the only one here who feels this way, but I
>>>> would like to be able to export to an HTML file with ACTUAL HECKBOXES
>>>> that I cna check off, say on a phone, when I put the milk in the
>>>> shopping art, or pack the swim goggles in the vacation bag, or
>>>> whatever. Maybe though I should be thinking in terms of some other
>>>> export application, remember the milk or something. Am I describing a
>>>> different use case than other users here, perhaps?
>>>
>>> My 3 cents:
>>>
>>> I don't see that active checkboxes would help since i don't see a use
>>> case where you can save the html back with the modified input. The
>>> github usecase mentioned in anothre thread requires a bunch of
>>> javascript to work (and write-out the modified file).
>>>
>>> While Sebastien's solution is visually appealing, i don't think
>>> requiring image assets is viable for the core exporter (note that it
>>> could be done w/o javascript, another dependency i would like to
>>> avoid).
>>>
>>> I've attached an html file which shows the various possible options. My
>>> comments:
>>>
>>> 1. As mentioned above, I don't see active checkboxes as useful
>>> since the modified state is transient.
>>> 2. I don't really like the disabled checkboxes visually.
>>> 3. Either of the other two approaches (the list item style, which
>>> parallels Sebastien's approach w/o using images) works for me.
>>> Visually I like the list item style solution, but doesn't really
>>> make the intent clear.
>>>
>>> So, my vote is to change the exporter to use the BALLOT BOX and BALLOT
>>> BOX WITH CHECK instead of the ascii character currently used and
>>> indicate partially checked boxes ([-]) with greyed text.
>>>
>>> Opinions?
>>>
>>> rick
>>>
>>> <checkbox.html>
