Update readme #264
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -1,11 +1,12 @@ | ||
| { | ||
| "Question types (basic functionality)": { | ||
| "text": "✅", | ||
| "integer": "✅", | ||
| "decimal": "✅", | ||
| "note": "✅", | ||
| "select_one": "✅", | ||
| "select_multiple": "✅", | ||
| "select_*_from_file": "✅", | ||
| "repeat": "✅", | ||
| "group": "✅", | ||
| "geopoint": "", | ||
|
|
@@ -23,7 +24,7 @@ | |
| "time": "", | ||
| "datetime": "", | ||
| "rank": "", | ||
| "csv-external": "✅", | ||
| "acknowledge": "🚧", | ||
| "start": "", | ||
| "end": "", | ||
|
|
@@ -35,11 +36,11 @@ | |
| "audit": "" | ||
| }, | ||
| "Appearances": { | ||
| "numbers": "✅", | ||
| "multiline": "", | ||
| "url": "", | ||
| "ex:": "", | ||
| "thousands-sep": "✅", | ||
| "bearing": "", | ||
| "vertical": "", | ||
| "no-ticks": "", | ||
|
|
@@ -75,7 +76,8 @@ | |
| "field-list": "✅", | ||
| "label": "✅", | ||
| "list-nolabel": "✅", | ||
| "list": "✅", | ||
| "counter": "" | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. I had never heard of this appearance before today—first in the meeting doc about design revisions for numeric inputs, now here. I don't see it in the XLSForm Docs, but from the meeting doc it sounds like the expectation is implemented (at least partly? increment/decrement buttons). Although I guess we'd want to explicitly account for (== implement it) it so we don't regress if we decide to limit that presentation for inputs without a I also think this emphasizes my caution about treating this as a starting point for building out some sort of programmatic form feature support detection. In this case, it isn't just a gap in what we're tracking. It also implicates cross-referencing at least one other project beyond the XLSForm Docs. I see it was added relatively recently, but now I also see other appearances there which aren't in the XLSForm Docs and weren't added as recently. There was a problem hiding this comment. It was in the original The authoritative sources of appearances are the XLSForm template and the ODK docs. If you do see something missing from somewhere, please file an issue! There was a problem hiding this comment. Ah, I totally glazed over it in #251! I saw the reference to Enketo's presentation and probably stopped there. (Likely because the increment/decrement presentation is a de facto default on the web, as it's the default presentation for |
||
| }, | ||
| "Parameters": { | ||
| "randomize": "✅", | ||
|
|
@@ -115,7 +117,6 @@ | |
| "big-image": "", | ||
| "audio": "", | ||
| "video": "", | ||
| "secondary instance (last saved)": "", | ||
| "autoplay": "" | ||
| }, | ||
|
|
||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since it appears we missed this before, I'm concerned that we've missed others. Not the biggest deal if we're updating it as we go, but definitely doesn't make me feel very confident in using this as a basis for programmatic form feature support detection.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it was put as part of
secondary instance (external choice file)in another section. I went ahead and removed that in a new commit since I think this will be more useful for users.The XLSForm template is intended to be authoritative but it doesn't include everything that's here because it's not all relevant to XLSForm authoring. I find this format and content pretty useful but let's definitely discuss other ideas you have!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think using the XLSForm template might be a great starting point for programmatic concerns, and would probably help narrow down cross referencing with this as a companion source of truth.