fluid-work IRC Logs-2011-01-27

[09:30:13 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: I have a quick question about your patch for cleaning up the HTML and CSS in Uploader if you have a sec
[09:30:22 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark yep
[09:30:24 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> what's up?
[09:31:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It looks like we lost a style related to progressive enhancement
[09:31:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> or rather, a class name on the Uploader
[09:32:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Not sure if that was an oversight or intentional
[09:32:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, if I turn off JavaScript, both the simple Uploader and the full one are visible on the page
[09:32:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> The Progressive Enhancement classes work with a bit of JavaScript to automatically do some hiding and showing on page load when JavaScript is available
[09:33:07 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, by default, the basic version should be visible and the fancy Uploader markup should be hidden
[09:33:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then the ProgressiveEnhancement.js file, when loaded into a browser with JS turned on, will flip that around
[09:34:14 CST(-0600)] <mlam> colinclark: There's a JIRA for this uploader issue. http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3992
[09:34:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Seems to me it's as easy as putting fl-progEnhance-enhanced back on the Uploader's form, no?
[09:34:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> thanks mlam
[09:34:45 CST(-0600)] <mlam> If it's a simple fix, hopefully we can knock off another JIRA with this scroller change
[09:34:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Looks like it was a regression in 1.3
[09:34:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yeah
[09:35:17 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark it was an unsed deprecated style
[09:35:28 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> the style that gets used for prog enhancement is still there
[09:35:47 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: My other question, which is just motivated by curiosity, is how come we override fl-progEnhance-basic with a different style?
[09:36:12 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark did removing that style break things?
[09:36:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: Nope
[09:36:18 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm not sure why we o
[09:36:19 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You're cool there
[09:36:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> looks like that happened back in 1.3
[09:36:23 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> *do
[09:36:44 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah i think it was just fl-progressive replace fl-Progressive or whatever the name is
[09:36:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: Can you take a look for me, and see if there's any reason to?
[09:36:47 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> the change in naming
[09:37:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> One of my goals for cleaning up the markup and CSS for Uploader was to understand all the motivations for why we are doing things
[09:37:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and if we can't figure out the motivations, get rid of stuff (smile)
[09:37:30 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> let me take a look
[09:37:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So removing the old styles for fl-ProgEnhance-xyz makes perfect sense
[09:37:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And it looks like the fl-progEnhance-enhanced style got shaved off well before you first started streamlining the file
[09:38:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> But I think it'd be awesome if we went really thoroughly through the styles of the component
[09:38:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> "Own them," heidi_ (smile)
[09:38:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It'll be awesome
[09:38:41 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah there are so many
[09:39:17 CST(-0600)]

<heidi_> okay so in fss-layout, fl-progEnhance-basic styles are {} nothing. and in uploader they are

Unknown macro: {display}

[09:40:04 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i don't really understand the motivation behind these styles... -basic vs -enhanced. like how they are used together.
[09:40:25 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm guessing if you have an -enhanced , it's up to you to hide the -basic
[09:40:33 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> which is why it exists in Uploader.css
[09:41:01 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i don't know why -enhanced's default is display:none in fss, and -basic is nothing. feels like it should be the other way around?
[09:41:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Nope, that's what I was saying earlier
[09:41:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'll try to explain again
[09:41:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, with progressive enhancement, what we want to be able to do is show a simplified version when JavaScript is turned off
[09:41:27 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> ill re-read, sorry
[09:41:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> That means we can't do anything at all to set up the page with JavaScript
[09:41:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We have to do things sort of "backwards"
[09:42:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Meaning, make sure the basic stuff is styled by default to be visible
[09:42:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and the fancy stuff should be styled by default to be invisible
[09:42:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then the framework has this file called ProgressiveEnhancement.js
[09:42:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Take a look at what it does
[09:42:30 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> okay, so then we're good as it is
[09:42:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> If you scroll down to the bottom of the file, you'll see a big comment saying "This code runs immediately..."
[09:43:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And we do this with JavaScript:
[09:43:02 CST(-0600)]

<colinclark> $("head").append("<style type='text/css'>.fl-progEnhance-basic, .fl-ProgEnhance-basic

Unknown macro: { display}

</style>");


[09:43:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So we write a style, right at the top of the page, as early as possible, which "flips things around"
[09:43:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> making the basic version invisible
[09:44:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, all of this is at the framework level
[09:44:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Meaning a combination of including fss-layout.css and ProgressiveEnhancement.js should make it all happen for free
[09:44:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Ordinarily, I can't see any reason why someone would override those styles, unless they're doing something very fancy
[09:44:53 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> okay, so that display none on -basic should be happening by the js, not in Uploader.css
[09:45:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> For fl-progEnhance-basic, yep
[09:45:32 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> so yeah we can prob remove it (smile)
[09:46:26 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> and it looks like we just have a style that tweaks the look of the inputs in the -basic version
[09:46:49 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I wonder why it does that
[09:46:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Any guesses?
[09:47:45 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> it's putting a bit of space above the 'save' button
[09:48:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I wonder if there's a better way to do this
[09:48:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm not averse to it
[09:48:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it's just that we're sort of piggybacking on existing styles
[09:48:11 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> so is there something wrong with ProgressiveEnhancement.js that it's not hiding -enhance?
[09:48:44 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> or is it that i mucked up that style
[09:48:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I don't think so, since if you look at fss-layout.css, fl-progEnhance-enhanced should be set to display: none by default
[09:48:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> By nature, it has to be, right?
[09:49:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We can't hide the fancy stuff with JavaScript if JavaScript is turned off
[09:49:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> (smile)
[09:49:11 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> ha right
[09:49:21 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> so i need to add -enhanced on the uploader.html
[09:50:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Yeah, I was just trying to do that on the flc-uploader <form> element, but so far no luck
[09:50:13 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> fl-progEnhance-enhanced should be on the second form
[09:50:16 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep
[09:50:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> That's the idea
[09:50:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> try it and see what you find
[09:50:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> This CSS and markup still really perplexes me
[09:50:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Like, why does the fl-progEnhance-basic <form> have an .fl-uploader class on it?
[09:51:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Doesn't seem to make much sense to me
[09:51:14 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> it doesn't seem to do anything
[09:51:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yeah
[09:51:22 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> adding -enhanced
[09:51:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Can you look a bit more into why?
[09:51:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> You've got the Web developer toolbar installed, right?
[09:51:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So it's super easy to enable/disable JS
[09:52:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think we really should go through this markup and stylesheet top to bottom and really understand it and make it wicked
[09:52:18 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Once we iron out a few of these issues, I'll commit your patch
[09:52:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> you can finish up the next item you have on your to do list for the release for 1.3.1
[09:52:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and then I think we should cycle back and own this markup and styling (smile)
[09:52:42 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> it is because fl-uploader is over-riding the display none with block
[09:53:39 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah... big job. it's such twisty css. but yeah, removing display:block from fl-uploader fixes it
[09:54:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Why does fl-uploader display:block in the first place, do you know?
[09:54:14 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i don't know
[09:54:30 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i don't see why it's needed
[09:54:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> very strange
[09:55:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Do you feel up for the task of De-Twistifying this CSS over the next little while, heidi_?
[09:55:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It seems like it could be fun
[09:55:45 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark mmmm okay (smile)
[09:55:52 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> cool
[09:56:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> As I say, finish up the Inline Edit stuff or whatever you are currently in the midst of
[09:56:21 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm putting up patches for the fss-scroller demo, and rich inline this morning, and then i'll get to it
[09:56:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and I'll get this patch in as a solid first step
[09:56:24 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> cool
[09:56:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> great
[09:59:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: One other thing I'd like to get your advice on
[10:00:06 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> shoot
[10:01:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, I now get everything that happened to cause this progress enhancement stuff to break in the Uploader
[10:01:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And it makes me think that I never quite got it right...
[10:01:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Previous to 1.3, there was this fluid.progressivelyEnhanceableUploader() function
[10:02:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> which was responsible for doing some hiding and showing of the Uploader depending on the circumstances
[10:02:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> as a sort of side effect, it was the code that would restyle fl-progEnhance-enhanced to be visible
[10:02:47 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Because again, by default, our styles have to show -basic and hide -enhanced
[10:02:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and if JavaScript is present, it should flip them around
[10:03:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but of course, I pasted you the implementation in ProgressiveEnhancement.js and something struck me
[10:03:22 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> what's that?
[10:03:26 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We were only flipping -basic, leaving -enhanced untouched
[10:03:37 CST(-0600)]

<colinclark> Here's the code again: $("head").append("<style type='text/css'>.fl-progEnhance-basic, .fl-ProgEnhance-basic

Unknown macro: { display}

</style>");


[10:04:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So I said earlier that progressive enhancement was a "framework-level feature"
[10:04:26 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> right, so -enhance is always hidden now
[10:04:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Meaning the user shouldn't have to do anything beyond linking in the right files and putting the class names in place
[10:04:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep
[10:04:45 CST(-0600)] <mlam> colinclark: submitted patch for FLUID-4017: HTML5 asynchronous to synchronous uploading
[10:05:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, to make this really useful, we need to "flip" fl-progEnhance-enhanced in ProgressiveEnhancement.js, too
[10:05:09 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And it gets into a kind of mildly thorny issue
[10:05:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> There is, unfortunately, no display:default style or anything like that
[10:05:51 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> why is flipping -enhanced thorny?
[10:05:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ^^
[10:06:08 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So, assuming that an fl-progEnhance-enhanced style could go on almost any type of element, what can we safely do to make the element visible again?
[10:06:29 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I mean, our first instinct would be to do something like display:block
[10:06:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> but then we're forcing elements to be block level, even if they aren't naturally that way
[10:06:45 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Does that make sense?
[10:06:46 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i see
[10:06:57 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah we have to counter 'none' with 'something defaulty'
[10:07:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> if only we could
[10:07:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> no such style exists, regrettably
[10:07:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and what makes things even more complicated is that this style really has to be put into the document as early as possible
[10:07:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> meaning, the element with fl-progEnhance-enhanced won't even exist yet
[10:07:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so attempts to be fancy would be foiled
[10:07:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> li
[10:07:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> like, say, trying to look at the element and determine a good display: style for it
[10:08:52 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> thinking about 'inherit' but that's prob too flakey
[10:09:24 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> wow what the heck is "display:run-in"
[10:09:31 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> "The element will generate a block or inline box, depending on context"
[10:09:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> wow
[10:09:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I've been reading this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/CSS/display
[10:09:52 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> i'm on http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_class_display.asp
[10:10:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I guess the easiest thing to do is to make a "contract"
[10:10:42 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and just tell people in the documentation, "you must only place fl-progEnhance-enhanced on a block-level element"
[10:10:48 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Which of course is the least ideal
[10:12:14 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> hmm... yeah. it's always over-ridable too right?
[10:13:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It is, but I guess it would have to be done in JavaScript
[10:13:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Since we're doing this in JavaScript
[10:13:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It does look like that's pretty well all we can do
[10:13:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> anastasiac: Is there documentation for the FSS's progEnhance styles currently?
[10:14:46 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> colinclark, not that I know of specifically, but my familiarity with the FSS docs is inadequate
[10:14:54 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> lol
[10:15:02 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> quite the self-judgement
[10:15:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> lemme take a look
[10:15:16 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> progEnc styles are mentioned on the API page
[10:15:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think I'll add a note about the fact that it's really only wise to use fl-progEnhance-enhanced on a block level element
[10:16:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Which, at least, is an improvement on having that style do absolutely nothing, ever (smile)
[10:16:41 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark is that in addition to fixing progressive..js to flip -enhanced ?
[10:16:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yes
[10:16:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Here's the new code
[10:18:04 CST(-0600)]

<colinclark> $("head").append("<style type='text/css'>.fl-progEnhance-basic, .fl-ProgEnhance-basic

Unknown macro: { display}

.fl-progEnhance-enhanced, .fl-ProgEnhance-enhanced

Unknown macro: { display}

</style>");


[10:18:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> seem cool?
[10:18:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> if a little lengthy? (tongue)
[10:19:12 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> looks right. will there ever be a time when we can ditch Prog styles?
[10:19:20 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> capital p
[10:19:40 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Yes
[10:19:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it's deprecated, so we usually give people a few major releases as warning
[10:20:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I honestly can't remember when we first marked it as deprecated
[10:20:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> But I say stick it on your list for 1.4
[10:20:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> seems like a good time
[10:20:28 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> It makes our life a little harder, but at least we're not jerks
[10:20:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> breaking people's code whenever we feel like changing stuff
[10:20:39 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> (smile)
[10:20:46 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeahhhh
[10:20:48 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> (wink)
[10:21:05 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So here's what I did with the basic uploader style
[10:21:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I put a new classname on that Save button
[10:21:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> <input class="fl-uploader-basic-save" type="submit" value="Save"/>
[10:21:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> And then slapped this style in the CSS, instead of the other one we had:
[10:21:47 CST(-0600)]

<colinclark> .fl-uploader-basic-save

Unknown macro: {margin-top}

[10:21:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> seem okay?
[10:21:58 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yep that's good
[10:22:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Great, so we squashed another bug
[10:22:12 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> and then added fl-progEnhance to other form?
[10:22:15 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> yep
[10:22:18 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> wicked
[10:22:23 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> So everything is hiding and showing nicely
[10:22:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> thanks, mlam, for reminding us about that JIRA
[10:22:32 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> right on, thanks colin
[10:22:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Oh, one more thing, heidi_
[10:22:42 CST(-0600)] <mlam> np
[10:22:46 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yep?
[10:22:51 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I wondered about your naming for the fl-uploader-data styles
[10:23:01 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> At first glance, I might ask myself "what's the data part of the Uploader?"
[10:23:17 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Do you think we should name it more descriptively?
[10:23:22 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I dunno, myself
[10:23:37 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah, i agree it's not ideal... and part of the clean up was to not even have it, just reference fl-uploader table or something instead
[10:25:00 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> it coulb e fl-uploader-table for now ?
[10:25:20 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> it could
[10:25:27 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> or we could call it fl-uploader-fileQueue or something?
[10:25:34 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I guess the table is the file queue itself now, right?
[10:25:55 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> there are some styles with the name fl-uploader-queue already
[10:25:59 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> so this gets confusing (smile)
[10:26:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I vote for leaving it as -data for now, and then when you take another pass through the CSS, we can look at comprehensively naming everything in an awesome way?
[10:26:51 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> colinclark that sounds best ya.
[10:26:56 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ok
[10:27:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> This is like a style rebirth for the Uploader
[10:27:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Uploader Makeover
[10:27:29 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> hehe. yes.
[10:27:49 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> uploader next top model
[10:29:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> lol!
[10:48:53 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> heidi_: One more style question for you
[10:49:01 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yep
[10:49:03 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I notice this new style:
[10:49:04 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> +.fl-uploader-queue:focus {
[10:49:10 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> with a comment above it
[10:49:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> +/* this style is here for debugging, if everything is working right the list items are focusable but the list not. */
[10:49:28 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah i'm not sure what that is. it was there before
[10:49:31 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> ah
[10:49:32 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> odd
[10:50:06 CST(-0600)] <heidi_> yeah ill test it out when going through it again
[10:50:38 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Thanks
[12:19:59 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> colinclark, yura_, Bosmon2: do you know what this error is for "Illegal cond->cond transition" just got it in a fluid.fail message
[12:20:36 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> Yes, it means that your component tree is corrupt
[12:20:40 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> Or otherwise in an invalid form
[12:20:45 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> ah okay
[12:20:57 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon2: thanks
[12:21:05 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> It's one of the few concessions we have to having a GRAMMARR (tongue)
[12:21:24 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> (smile)
[12:21:34 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> now i just have to figure out why
[12:23:04 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon2: could it be caused by the model or part there of being missing
[12:23:20 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> No
[12:23:33 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> Bosmon2: hmm.. okay...
[12:23:34 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> It is an error which occurs when expanding a component tree
[12:23:40 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> oh
[12:24:06 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> okay.. i'm trying to convert the fluid.pager.selfRender component to be a rendererComponent
[12:24:34 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> it seems like the model is updated and passed into the call to reRender..
[12:24:44 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> the that.render function only takes in a tree though
[12:25:16 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> so i passed in the updated tree, and didn't bother with the model
[12:26:18 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> oh well.. i'll take a look at this again later.. off to talk "git" with Jamon
[12:32:31 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> cool
[12:32:34 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon2> Good luck (tongue)
[13:41:53 CST(-0600)] <athena> is there an easy way to set the content of a div in the renderer to be some HTML string?
[15:46:02 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> athena: just running out, but i think the final type "verbatim", on this wiki page is what you want http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/fluid/Renderer+Component+Types
[15:46:17 CST(-0600)] <athena> thanks! (smile)
[15:46:27 CST(-0600)] <athena> much appreciated! i'll try it out this afternoon
[15:46:37 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> (smile) np hope it works for you
[15:46:45 CST(-0600)] <athena> thanks - have a good one
[15:47:00 CST(-0600)] <Justin_o> thanks.. talk to you later