|
|
extendRefinementSpan.png (20,858 bytes) |
|
|
It is not clear what your are proposing, should the extendRefinementSpan option be removed? |
|
|
My apologies for not making this clear right away, but the base idea here is to provide a better documentation of this feature, which is technically incomplete. Therefore, the option should stay and will be useful in these kinds of specific situations. That said, even though this feature is useful in said situations, it's flawed in the way it was implemented. And given that it was not clear why this feature was needed in the first place, when I managed to track down this near-perfect example case, I had to share it. To me, I'm fine with this issue being closed as-is, namely identifying what this feature was for in the first place, specially when it was originally not optional. |
|
|
It is not clear what needs to be done, are you planning to work on it or leaving it for someone in the community to work on it? |
|
|
I'm planning to work on it, but I have no idea when I'll be able to do so. And it will be done at work, not on my free time. I'm still looking a bit more into this and am planning to share my findings on this, as well as then solution when I come to it. So far, I've only managed to deduce that: - If the refinement level was shared from the shells to the feature edges, it would then allow the feature edges increase the visibility on the reveal at the top. Either way, if you prefer, this issue can be closed as suspended. The primary objective of this report was to try and contribute to this feature, even though it's not yet the solution. |
|
|
Pending contribution. |
- Anonymous
