Details
-
Type:
Improvement
-
Status: Closed
-
Priority:
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
-
Affects Version/s: 1.8
-
Component/s: ICE-Components
-
Labels:None
-
Environment:All
-
Affects:Documentation (User Guide, Ref. Guide, etc.), Sample App./Tutorial
Description
It would be useful if users could override the label and/or image attribute-based mechanism for defining a panelTab label and instead optionally use an arbitrary facet to define the tab's label region. This would provide great flexibility for users wanting to use multiple components in the label section, or even to add a "close" button to the tab label itself.
Since clicking on the label region selects the tab for viewing special handling must be incorporated such that any input type components used in the label facet must *not* change the tab visibility when clicked, but instead will rely on their own click event handlers, which may set the tabs visibility if desired (or remove the tab completely as in the case of the "close" button).
Since clicking on the label region selects the tab for viewing special handling must be incorporated such that any input type components used in the label facet must *not* change the tab visibility when clicked, but instead will rely on their own click event handlers, which may set the tabs visibility if desired (or remove the tab completely as in the case of the "close" button).
Issue Links
- blocks
-
ICE-4624 Add demo to Component Showcase for new panelTab facet label feature
-
- Closed
-
Was css modifications really necessary?
In my opinion css changes from revision 18990 and 19005 can be reverted because I see some problems
instead
.icePnlTbOn .MidMid>a, .icePnlTbOn .MidMid>div {
can be old
.icePnlTbOn .MidMid a, .icePnlTbOn .MidMid div {
.icePnlTbOn .MidMid a, .icePnlTbOn .MidMid div {
increase twice size of tab area because div and a got the same big padding
<a class="icePnlTbLblLnk">
<div><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><tbody><tr><td>Tab title</td></tr></tbody></table></div></a>
Finnaly xp.css from revision 18990 was better than 19005.