Re: [O] Getting checkboxes in HTML output?

[Rick Frankel]

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.


> 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.

rick
> 
> 
> On 29.11.2013, at 17:11, Rick Frankel <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > On 2013-11-28 16:58, Matt Price wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Sebastien Vauban
> >> <address@hidden> 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>