new elements

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Allan Streib

unread,
May 31, 2021, 2:20:08 PMMay 31
to nitro...@googlegroups.com
Hi all,

What is your normal approach when you want to use an element that isn't defined? For example I am working on a page where I want to use HTML description lists and Nitrogen are no #dl{}, #dt{}, or $dd{} elements.

My workaround was to use #template{} with bindings, which works conceptually but breaks from how other elements are handled, and I'm going to need to pass about 25 bind values which is a bit tedious. I have these values in a record, but the record definition doesn't seem to be visible to the template callouts.

I also thought about just looking at the element_span module or other similar and follow along to create element_dl, element_dt, and element_dd modules.

I am still very much a beginner at Nitrogen and fairly new to Erlang as well, so I may be missing something more idiomatic?

Thanks,

Allan

braun...@gmail.com

unread,
May 31, 2021, 8:09:54 PMMay 31
to Nitrogen Project / The Nitrogen Web Framework for Erlang
I never used that <dl> labels. Personally I think these cases to be overkill to implement in a module. Just look the  #list and #listitem elements
to understand what I mean (or maybe take some ideas...). I would just spit the html with a oneliner:

 %%  make_list([{"item1", "definition1"},  {"item2", "definition2"}, ...]).
make_list(List) ->
  [ "<dl>",     [ ["<dt>", DT, "</dt><dd>", DD, "</dd>"] || {DT, DD} <- List]],   "</dl>"].

There is nothing wrong making them elements, thats the Nitrogen way..., but then you would be creating 3 modules just to emit
the same html as that oneliner.

Jesse Gumm

unread,
Jun 2, 2021, 3:48:41 PMJun 2
to nitrogenweb
Hey Allan,

This is a situation where I probably would create new elements, however you can use some trickery to minimize the number of copied modules.

The #h1, #h2, etc elements all use the element_h.erl module:


If you're interested in adding this elements as built-in nitrogen elements, I'm comfortable merging in a PR that defines that.

Does that point you in a workable direction? 

-Jesse



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nitrogen Project / The Nitrogen Web Framework for Erlang" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nitrogenweb...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/nitrogenweb/ce872491-92f6-46b8-bf0c-4f57d14abdb4%40www.fastmail.com.

Allan Streib

unread,
Jun 3, 2021, 3:16:03 PMJun 3
to nitro...@googlegroups.com
I did go ahead and implement elements before I saw this, I basically copied list/listitem and created #dlist{} and #dlistitem{}.

Since dl elements can contain both dt and dd elements, I added an attribute 'type' to the dlistitem element. So an example would be:

#dlist{ body=[
    #dlistitem{ type=term, text="Term" },
    #dlistitem{ type=definition, body=DefinitionBody }
]}

Does that seem acceptable? If so I'll put a PR together. If not, I am certainly open to a better approach.

Allan

On Wed, Jun 2, 2021, at 3:48 PM, Jesse Gumm wrote:
Hey Allan,

This is a situation where I probably would create new elements, however you can use some trickery to minimize the number of copied modules.

The #h1, #h2, etc elements all use the element_h.erl module:


If you're interested in adding this elements as built-in nitrogen elements, I'm comfortable merging in a PR that defines that.

Does that point you in a workable direction? 

-Jesse



On Mon, May 31, 2021, 1:20 PM Allan Streib <ast...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

Jesse Gumm

unread,
Jun 3, 2021, 7:17:19 PMJun 3
to nitrogenweb
Hey Allan,

Excellent!

My only real concern for prime-time is: Is that level of verbosity acceptable?

<DD> is a *lot* shorter than #dlistitem{type=definition}

What if it was something like:

#dlist{body=[
    #dterm{...},
    #ddesc{...}
]}.

Or, it could very well be this:

#dlist{body=[
    #dlistitem{term="Some Term", description="some Description"}
]}.

Leaving either term or description out would simply not render the respective dd or dt tag, but provide a simple mechanism to do the dt, dd pair together in a logical way.

As I'd expect most situations to have a pair of <DT> and <DD> together, I'd probably lean toward the latter approach myself.

What do you think?

-Jesse

Also, from what I've read, it looks like the term "definition" was replaced with "description" in the standard (or maybe I'm misremembering).

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nitrogen Project / The Nitrogen Web Framework for Erlang" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to nitrogenweb...@googlegroups.com.


--
Jesse Gumm
Owner, Sigma Star Systems
414.940.4866 || sigma-star.com || @jessegumm

Allan Streib

unread,
Jun 3, 2021, 8:16:24 PMJun 3
to nitro...@googlegroups.com
I like the combined dlistitem, in fact I had already written a little helper function to create the term and description pairs. I'll put some more work into it.

And I think you're right, it's "description" not "definition". MDN says:

"The <dt> HTML element specifies a term in a description or definition list," 

So I think I just locked in on "definition" for some reason. But the container <dl> is "Description List"

Allan


On Thu, Jun 3, 2021, at 7:17 PM, Jesse Gumm wrote:
Hey Allan,

Excellent!

My only real concern for prime-time is: Is that level of verbosity acceptable?

<DD> is a *lot* shorter than #dlistitem{type=definition}

What if it was something like:

#dlist{body=[
    #dterm{...},
    #ddesc{...}
]}.

Or, it could very well be this:

#dlist{body=[
    #dlistitem{term="Some Term", description="some Description"}
]}.

Leaving either term or description out would simply not render the respective dd or dt tag, but provide a simple mechanism to do the dt, dd pair together in a logical way.

As I'd expect most situations to have a pair of <DT> and <DD> together, I'd probably lean toward the latter approach myself.

What do you think?

-Jesse

Also, from what I've read, it looks like the term "definition" was replaced with "description" in the standard (or maybe I'm misremembering).
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages