IIRC, Om was working on this to some degree. One plan was to convert FXG to SVG.
AIUI, a SkinnableContainer wouldn't be that hard. Container already has an inner div to hold the children, so a different view could have the outer div display SVG behind the children. I think there were more questions about SkinnableComponent because not every component is already implemented to support a skin by default, and SVG as a backgroundImage for some HTMLElements don't work well in all browsers. Flex Skinning was pretty expensive because it added a UIComponent child to every component. Because we are PAYG, we don't want to force that on everyone, and as the MDL work showed, CSS Themes may be just as good at creating nice visual experiences and more standard/common. But as Yishay said, in theory, a new set of views could add that extra DIV behind each component if that's what it takes to implement SVG "skins". And we also know from MDL and Flat that we can also just re-factor components into enough pieces that they can have a different look. Of course, I could be wrong... -Alex On 10/16/17, 6:50 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: >We need to have a "skinning story" - something about alternate views, CSS, >that sort of thing. Adding to my list. >‹peter > >On 10/16/17, 2:29 AM, "yishayw" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>I like it. >> >> >>> There is no direct equivalent of SkinnableContainer in Royale (at this >>> time). A reasonable alternative is the Container. >> >>Maybe we could mention that Royale components typically have views which >>can >>be used to control appearance without changing behavior. To me, spark >>skins >>sort of played the same role. >> >> >> >>-- >>Sent from: >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapache-ro >>y >>ale-development.20373.n8.nabble.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C1f660ab8e3b74b1c >>a >>0b108d5145f4fd8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636437321952 >>4 >>70504&sdata=ueXDGjTEy4hq0kzF9w1P3utRy%2B805PEm54F7P9ZceZ8%3D&reserved=0 >
