Hello,
Thank you all for your suggestions. I attached to the JIRA ticket a new
patch with the implementation of the new syntax decided here:
background-color : -tr-property-ref("af|foo", "color")
Please have a look over it and see if it is ok.
Thank you!
Marius
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Jeanne Waldman
<jeanne.wald...@oracle.com>wrote:
> I'm going to vote for Blake's suggestion.
> +1
>
> background-color : -tr-property-ref("af|foo", "color")
>
> I can imagine a DT adding the -tr-property-ref option onto the list of
> options for the property. Like 'inherit' is an option on most property
> names.
>
> And we already parse out the value, so it won't be a performance hit.
>
> Jeanne
>
> Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 4/9/2010 6:18 PM PT:
>
> Blake,
>> By the way, I can go either way.
>> I'm just telling you what I think when I see -tr-rule-ref. I think it does
>> tell me something. I can look at it and think, this does something special
>> for me. And with a design time tool, I can see my options are selector and
>> property -- selector "Includes a selector", and property "Includes a
>> property from a selector".
>>
>> Jeanne Waldman wrote, On 4/9/2010 3:56 PM PT:
>>
>>> People are used to typing -tr-rule-ref to mean "This is a special rule,
>>> and I'm including something."
>>> -tr-rule-ref:selector means "I'm including a selector"
>>> -tr-rule-ref:property means "I'm including a property"
>>>
>>> Blake Sullivan wrote, On 4/9/2010 2:51 PM PT:
>>>
>>>> Jeanne Waldman said the following On 4/8/2010 2:07 PM PT:
>>>>
>>>>> I like this idea. I was playing around with ways to combine the last
>>>>> two parameters, but nothing looked good. This looks good to me.
>>>>> -tr-rule-ref: property("background-color", "af|foo{color}")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Jeanne,
>>>>
>>>> I still like
>>>>
>>>> background-color : -tr-property-ref("af|foo", "color")
>>>>
>>>> better than the -tr-rule-ref versions, because I think that it looks
>>>> cleaner. I'm using a normal CSS property assignment. I'm not totally hung
>>>> up on it though and think that your version solves the problem of
>>>> remembering what all of the parameters are and what their order is. Though
>>>> the lack of values in the {} is unusual and developers might thing that
>>>> they
>>>> can specify weird stuff in here, like values and multiple properties.. I
>>>> do
>>>> think that advantages of reusing -tr-rule-ref are oversold, though. Since
>>>> the skin author still needs to know about the new property() (or should it
>>>> be -tr-property) and its syntax, which seems pretty much the same as
>>>> -tr-property-ref. Actually the more I think about it, the less I like it.
>>>> It isn't clear what the the -tr-rule-ref is doing for me here--it provides
>>>> no extra information:
>>>>
>>>> Here is a direct comparison, using the same name "property"
>>>>
>>>> background-color : property("af|foo", "color") //
>>>> Option 2
>>>> -tr-rule-ref : property("background-color", "af|foo{color}") // Option
>>>> 3'
>>>>
>>>> In either case, I still need to understand what "property()" does, so
>>>> how does "-tr-rule-ref" help me? All it is doing is taking up the spot
>>>> where I want to put the property that I want to assign to, forcing me to
>>>> move it to the unnatural location as a parameter. -tr-rule-ref works the
>>>> way it does because it allows multiple properties to be assigned at once,
>>>> but if we are only picking out one property, this is a liability.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, both syntaces could support the degenerate (and most common
>>>> case) where the property names are the same. Copying the background-color
>>>> property:
>>>>
>>>> background-color : property("af|foo") // Option 2
>>>> -tr-rule-ref : property("background-color", "af|foo") // Option 3'
>>>>
>>>> -- Blake Sullivan
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan Yu wrote, On 4/8/2010 12:47 PM PT:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To make it more clear, maybe we can combine the last two parameters
>>>>>> into a single one like: "af|foo{color}". Also, if "{color}" is omitted,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> property name specified in parameter 1 will be pulled.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Alan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/8/2010 11:32 AM, Jeanne Waldman wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I like Option 3 as well. It's still fairly short, and it uses a
>>>>>>> convention we already have. It is a little unclear which parameter you
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> setting (background-color in this example) and which you are pulling
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> the selector (color).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alan Yu wrote, On 4/5/2010 2:31 PM PT:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Jeanne,
>>>>>>>> I didn't know we have a third option to consider: -tr-rule-ref:
>>>>>>>> property("background-color", "af|foo", "color").
>>>>>>>> I'd vote for option #3 for the following reasons:
>>>>>>>> 1. The syntax is consistent with -tr-rule-ref:selector(...).
>>>>>>>> 2. It is intuitive if you're already familiar with
>>>>>>>> "-tr-rule-ref:selector(...)".
>>>>>>>> 3. Option #2 can be confusing to the user since the keyword
>>>>>>>> "-tr-rule-ref" can be used both as a property name and a value.
>>>>>>>> 4. From DT's perspective, it's easier to support since we only need
>>>>>>>> to provide another possible value (property(...), vs. selector(...) to
>>>>>>>> "-tr-rule-ref") to help with user's selection in the PI.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -Alan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/5/2010 1:56 PM, Jeanne Waldman wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you can remove the Fwd, and reply-to d...@myfaces.apache.org.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Trinidad][Skinning][API] Include property in CSS API
>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:04:23 -0700
>>>>>>>>> From: Jeanne Waldman <jeanne.wald...@oracle.com>
>>>>>>>>> Reply-To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> To: MyFaces Development <dev@myfaces.apache.org>
>>>>>>>>> References: <
>>>>>>>>> n2z16f5365c1004020028l81278c5fv9b834da89c013...@mail.gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We don't have a -tr-include-style. We have a -tr-rule-ref:selector.
>>>>>>>>> So if we did #1, I would go for -tr-rule-ref:property instead of
>>>>>>>>> -tr-include-property.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1': -tr-rule-ref:property(selector="af|foo",propertyName="color",
>>>>>>>>> localPropertyName="background-color")
>>>>>>>>> 3. -tr-rule-ref: property("background-color", "af|foo", "color");
>>>>>>>>> // or
>>>>>>>>> something like this to make it shorter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Right now I'm leaning towards 2.
>>>>>>>>> 2':
>>>>>>>>> background-color: -tr-rule-ref:property("af|foo", "color");
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Marius Petoi wrote, On 4/2/2010 12:28 AM PT:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you followed the discussions on this topic from
>>>>>>>>>> http://markmail.org/search/?q=skinning#query:skinning%20order%3Adate-backward+page:1+mid:4nt2ykmdnnmcyvp4+state:results
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We need to decide between two alternatives for the syntax of the
>>>>>>>>>> "-tr-include-property". The two alternatives are:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. -tr-include-property:
>>>>>>>>>> property(selector="af|foo",propertyName="color",
>>>>>>>>>> localPropertyName="background-color")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. background-color : -tr-property-ref("af|foo", "color")
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The advantage of the first API is that it is quite similar to the
>>>>>>>>>> "-tr-include-style", while for the second one that the local
>>>>>>>>>> property name
>>>>>>>>>> can't be mistaken with the included property.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you think? Which is the best alternative?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> Marius
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
