Alex,
You are saying about simple case where we can extend UIBase for create new
Button, but what about more sophisticated for example Panel ? Do you want
us to create from scratch again all of that instead use Basic ? This is how
I see reading your last email or maybe I missing something.
Thanks, Piotr
2017-11-06 6:36 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> I'm not quite sure what the meaning of "based on Basic" means. I think
> someone is about to go and move a bunch of classes around to better
> organize our packages and classes, and I think that IUIBase and maybe
> UIBase should end up back in Core (where it was before Harbs temporarily
> wrapped the Sprites for SWF output).
>
> So, if you are saying that SkinnableCheckbox will extend UIBase, that
> makes sense. Should it extend Basic Checkbox? Possibly, if the override
> of createElement is straightforward.
>
> IMO, we shouldn't worry about Express or Basic. Just figure out what
> HTMLElements you need in what positions and sizes to get the visual
> changes you want. Then once we get it looking right, we can look at how
> it compares with the other components and decide if we want to restructure
> anything.
>
> I'm not quite sure how CSSCheckbox works. It could be that there is a Div
> where others have used a Span to hide the <input> and display something
> else instead, otherwise I would think you couldn't control the visuals of
> the check via CSS. These are the kinds of things we have to decide on.
>
> It is fine to start with some list of components in order to bound the
> work, but IMO, it is also important to have an understanding of the design
> principles so that other designers will have a better idea of how to add
> some other component that isn't on the list someday. I guarantee someone
> will come up with something new and Carlos/Angelo won't have time to
> design a default skin for it.
>
> When writing framework, I like to stop and consider whether any line of
> code is going to lock someone into something they might not want. That's
> why we have beads and multiple component sets. We want everything to be
> replaceable. I don't know if there is an analogy for Skins/Themes, but I
> think it would be to stop and consider if the HTMLElement topology 1)
> allows every pixel to be changed, and 2) if any two HTMLElements overlap,
> if there are too many limitations imposed by that overlap. If someone
> wants to Skin with Android, IOS, or even Windows 2.x or an old
> green-screen terminal, can they?
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/5/17, 1:29 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Basic is going to be the base for anything. I don’t think Express is
> >going to be very helpful. It should probably just be built out from Basic
> >components and/or copied from Basic.
> >
> >For an example of a styleable component, take a look at CSSCheckbox. I
> >think that’s a good example of a styleable component. You might be able
> >to do better, but I had a need for a checkbox which could be styled using
> >CSS and I created that class. I wanted to use a topcoat-styled checkbox,
> >which I was able to do using that class like this:
> >
> >package com.printui.view.components
> >{
> > import org.apache.flex.html.CSSCheckBox;
> >
> > public class CheckBox extends CSSCheckBox
> > {
> > public function CheckBox(){
> > super();
> > className="topcoat-checkbox";
> > checkClassName="topcoat-checkbox__checkmark";
> > }
> > }
> >}
> >
> >I then used that class in my app.
> >
> >There might be more elegant ways to specify classes, but this is how I
> >did it…
> >
> >Here’s what it looks like in the app:
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.evern
> >ote.com%2Fl%2FAI_1QITiAqVCe5rgWuBlfIr3HjEQic1Dh
> pQB%2Fimage.png&data=02%7C0
> >1%7C%7Cdfc2dc02415b446e995108d524945950%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> cee1
> >%7C0%7C0%7C636455141932227764&sdata=CCCp3fmlnGFtImPTsEf9JsIXJdkcQV
> g3zbkIch
> >2buoc%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >Hope this is useful,
> >Harbs
> >
> >> On Nov 5, 2017, at 11:01 PM, Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >> I was thinking about that and new component set is the approach which we
> >> should try, but we need to base on something. My first thoughts was
> >>that it
> >> should be Basic, cause I bet that once we start create style for each
> >> component we will end up with some issue or we would like to create some
> >> additional features to those controls in order to make that theme
> >>happen.
> >> It leads my thought then farther let's say that we will start work in
> >> following way:
> >> 1) Basic is our base
> >> 2) Carlos will prepare some appearance for component
> >> 3) We are starting to work on that, but it's end up that our component
> >>need
> >> some additional feature, which is do not suits for Basic
> >> 4) We are adds that feature to Express and use in that place Express
> >> component.
> >>
> >> It ends up that our component theme will be mix of Express and Basic
> >>
> >> Second approach is - Forget about Express, use Basic only and add to
> >>Theme
> >> set features if needed. Express will be always separate set, FAT and it
> >> will be responsibility for user if he would like to style it. - If our
> >> implementation will be in Theme enough robust, user should be able to
> >>use
> >> in his application Express with some styles from Theme set.
> >>
> >> Thoughts ?
> >> Piotr
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-11-05 11:21 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> I would suggest starting a new component set with a fresh slate called
> >>> Themed (or something like that).
> >>>
> >>> The Themed component set should give priority to style-ablitity and
> >>>ease
> >>> of use over just about every other consideration. I think of Express as
> >>> more of a middle-of the road approach to make things easier. A Themed
> >>>set
> >>> would be more of a replacement for mx and spark.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Definitely make a clear list of supported components. It’s
> >>>probably
> >>> more important to have quality of components rather than quantity. A
> >>>few
> >>> well constructed components is better than a lot of half-baked ones.
> >>>More
> >>> components could always be added.
> >>>
> >>> I’m very glad to hear that Angelo is working with you. That’s great
> >>>news!
> >>>
> >>> Harbs
> >>>
> >>>> On Nov 5, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Carlos Rovira <
> >>> carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> ok Alex,
> >>>>
> >>>> so if I understand correctly, you mean that we create our own set,
> >>>>with
> >>>> Basic as base right?
> >>>> but we should go with Express? It's great that we could create many
> >>>>sets
> >>> in
> >>>> Royale, and I think the Basic use
> >>>> you commented is very licit and didn't think about that. But we must
> >>> think
> >>>> in some *main* set, maybe is Express
> >>>> and that I want to focus this effort for that concrete set.
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean, one important thing here is that we all agree in support a
> >>> concrete
> >>>> list of UI controls and components
> >>>> I plan to make a discuss thread for this, since the theme feature will
> >>>> affect only to that controls, and if we want to include a new one
> >>>> we should vote to include it, since it implies to include in design,
> >>>> implementation and all themes that we want to support.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I'll create a discuss thread with this an other things we
> >>>>talked
> >>>> about since this is a huge effort and is important for all the
> >>>> people that will be involved to work around things discussed, voted
> >>>>and
> >>>> approved by all.
> >>>> We need to be synced here or we'll end working too much for somehitng
> >>> that
> >>>> does not get to be useful in the end. I want to ensure this before
> >>>> to start investing a huge amount of time.
> >>>>
> >>>> As well I was contacted by Angelo and talk about all this. He's very
> >>>> passionate as well on this and we'll seeing how we can combine our
> >>> efforts
> >>>> and if someone
> >>>> more wants to join us.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll be writing the discussion thread in order to plan the effort in
> >>> short.
> >>>> Stay tuned :)
> >>>>
> >>>> 2017-11-05 8:29 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Carlos,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think we're pretty much in agreement. Regarding Basic, for me, I
> >>>>>have
> >>>>> created plenty of web pages with non-styleable checkboxes. I don't
> >>>>>care
> >>>>> that the checkbox looks different on different browsers. I just want
> >>> the
> >>>>> smallest simplest output. Just like taking an HTML editor and
> >>>>>slapping
> >>> in
> >>>>> a few tags and calling it done. Would that be production? Sure, if
> >>>>>I'm
> >>>>> just want someone to check a box before enabling a download button.
> >>> IOW,
> >>>>> it would be for internal customers only.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, IMO, a Skinnable/Themeable component set would be something
> >>>>>else. I
> >>>>> think you will need that extra Span for a Checkbox. IMO, we should
> >>>>>just
> >>>>> go and build these new components. And when we get it mostly
> >>>>>working,
> >>> we
> >>>>> can compare against Basic and see if we want to parameterize the
> >>>>>views
> >>> in
> >>>>> the low-level Basic components or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My 2 cents,
> >>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 11/4/17, 8:19 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>> Rovira"
> >>>>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> HI Alex,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2017-11-03 17:52 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Carlos,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I skimmed through
> >>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fmaterial
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>.io%2Fguidelines%2F%23&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7Cbb03216ec0b84fcb6ab108d5239
> >>>>>>>7
> >>>>> 82e0
> >>>>>>> %7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>>>> 7C636454056000808812&sdata=g5
> >>>>>>> M5cpOsQUPasZfgmUddvnzmY3gF%2B1N%2B7j6Apgyf2Us%3D&reserved=0 last
> >>> night.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My impression is that there were two parts to it. First was the
> >>>>>>> environment/principles section which talked about physical objects
> >>>>>>>and
> >>>>>>> light (and motion), and then there were choices of widgets. For
> >>>>>>> example,
> >>>>>>> I didn't see anything in the first part that said that a text input
> >>> had
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>> be a single line and couldn't be a box.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Material guidelines could be a great way to start, but trying to
> >>>>>>give
> >>>>>> something different.
> >>>>>> I think that we need to get something that looks great while be
> >>>>>>clearly
> >>>>>> different to google material,
> >>>>>> bootstrap, and others so people could see us as an alternative. That
> >>> could
> >>>>>> make people copying us
> >>>>>> or adopting the whole Apache Royale SDK that is what we want in the
> >>>>>>end
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That made me think that we could use our widget set and apply
> >>>>>>>Material
> >>>>>>> environment and principles to it. If we decide not to, I would
> >>>>>>>think
> >>>>>>> you
> >>>>>>> would want to have some sort of similar environment/principles
> >>> document
> >>>>>>> which seems like a fair amount of work. I think we'd end up
> >>>>>>>looking
> >>>>>>> different because we have different widgets and maybe some
> >>>>>>>different
> >>>>>>> colors. I'm pretty sure that we don't want to be different so much
> >>> that
> >>>>>>> we don't create things that folks want to use. The priority to me
> >>>>>>>is
> >>>>>>> just
> >>>>>>> to prove that you can alter every pixel in every widget we have so
> >>> that
> >>>>>>> others can provide custom skins as well. So starting with Material
> >>>>>>> principles seems like it would save us time, we can get something
> >>>>>>> released, and can innovate more later.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think as you that we need a way to make the "presentation" of each
> >>>>>> component highly customizable.
> >>>>>> And we need to be different in visualization (art, colors, ...) but
> >>> not in
> >>>>>> usability that is what people
> >>>>>> needs to be consistently
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe a good question for our users is: How many of you used the
> >>>>>>> default
> >>>>>>> Flex skins vs a whole new set of skins? If most folks completely
> >>>>>>> re-skinned to match their corporate branding, it matters less what
> >>>>>>>our
> >>>>>>> default is, and more that we can allow folks to customize every
> >>>>>>>pixel.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> We need both: a skin that will be highly customizable and to change
> >>> skins
> >>>>>> to look very very different.
> >>>>>> People with lees money or time in their Apps will choose the first.
> >>> People
> >>>>>> that has more resources will go with the second.
> >>>>>> Apache Royale needs to support both
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The wireframe can be black and white, IMO. I was thinking that
> >>> "vivid"
> >>>>>>> would have parameterized colors.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I started to think that wireframe could end having lots of
> >>> customization
> >>>>>> controls. For example:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -2-3 main colors as we talked , and the same MDL does
> >>>>>> -possibilitiy to be solid colors, or gradients
> >>>>>> -possibility to have backgrounds more or less opaque
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> if we see a concrete component like button:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - configurable corners, square to round corners
> >>>>>> - more blocky (relief) or more flat
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So wireframe could be a concrete configuration of the main theme
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since Bootstrap was mentioned, I want to point out that the
> >>>>>>>Flat.swc
> >>> is
> >>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>> rough approximation of the Flat theme which is a Bootstrap theme.
> >>>>>>>It
> >>>>>>> is a
> >>>>>>> rough approximation because I could not use the Flat CSS file
> >>>>>>>directly
> >>>>>>> since it contains much more advanced CSS than we currently support
> >>>>>>>on
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> SWF side. But it presumed that the Checkbox was a Label with a
> >>>>>>>Span
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> hides in front of or behind the <input type="check" /> in order to
> >>> allow
> >>>>>>> customizing every pixel. Looks like MDL uses the same Span trick
> >>>>>>>but
> >>>>>>> maybe without a symbol font.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Basic is, IMO, truly meant to be Basic. I think the Basic Checkbox
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>> not have that extra Span. But it looks to me that a
> >>>>>>>SkinnableCheckbox
> >>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>> add that extra Span and you either give it the same class name that
> >>>>>>> BootStrap or MDL uses or create our own set of classnames and the
> >>>>>>>CSS
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>> goes with it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> The problem with Basic could be that if is very very basic and looks
> >>> with
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>> very basic look (as it is very poorly stylizable), I think
> >>>>>> People will not use it at all, in this case, I'll don't understand
> >>>>>>the
> >>>>>> goal
> >>>>>> with basic. It's intend ended as a base
> >>>>>> but to not use in production? For this reason is what I want to
> >>>>>>know if
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> think this theme feature could be plugged in basic or not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course, I could be wrong. This is not my area of expertise at
> >>>>>>>all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi Alex, maybe UX is not your expertise area, but your help here is
> >>> very
> >>>>>> needed since we can get to great ideas in this field, but
> >>>>>> maybe don't know how to bring it to implementation in Apache
> >>>>>>Royale. I
> >>>>>> think that you, Peter, Harbs,... are needed in order to
> >>>>>> make this happen in the pure arquitecture side or this feature.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 11/3/17, 1:35 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> >>>>>>> Rovira"
> >>>>>>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of
> >>>>>>>carlos.rov...@codeoscopic.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Alex,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 2017-11-03 7:39 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Carlos,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Looks good to me. Thanks for doing this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks :)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand all of the aspects of this effort. My
> >>>>>>> current
> >>>>>>>>> understanding is that Google Material is under the Apache License
> >>> and
> >>>>>>>>> thus
> >>>>>>>>> we can use it if we want to. Am I correct that
> >>>>>>>>>MaterialDesignLite
> >>> is
> >>>>>>>>> one
> >>>>>>>>> implementation of Google Material and we could create our own
> >>>>>>>>> implementation and it could be visually different?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We can implement our own material in Royale, but I'm afraid that
> >>> doing
> >>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>> will not make us
> >>>>>>>> highlight our solution against the rest of competitors. Another
> >>>>>>>>point
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> something I said various times:
> >>>>>>>> When I did MDL, I notice a huge problem: MDL has its own set of
> >>>>>>>> components,
> >>>>>>>> some are in all sets (Button)
> >>>>>>>> but others not (Card), and they has it's own implementation, what
> >>> make
> >>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> almost impossible generalize
> >>>>>>>> a theme. For this reason I always point that we need our own set
> >>>>>>>>and
> >>>>>>> there
> >>>>>>>> we can implement themes. But other
> >>>>>>>> *externa* sets will never get this since they have its own
> >>>>>>> implementation
> >>>>>>>> and most important once you start to develop
> >>>>>>>> with MDL you can't go back and change for other. So MDL is for me
> >>>>>>>> something
> >>>>>>>> we have until our own set are robust and
> >>>>>>>> highly configurable in both the things we can do and how can it
> >>>>>>>>could
> >>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>> represented, and switch between style should be
> >>>>>>>> really easy to change the global look of an App without much
> >>>>>>>>hassle.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also, IIRC, Material has different components than Flex did so
> >>>>>>>>>we'd
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>> to invent some new looks anyway. So having a TextInput with
> >>>>>>>>>borders
> >>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>> around would just be our flavor of Material.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's what I point above. We must to *freeze* the list of
> >>>>>>>>components
> >>>>>>> at
> >>>>>>>> some time work over a concrete set
> >>>>>>>> We can then plan in the future include a new component in the
> >>> official
> >>>>>>>> set,
> >>>>>>>> and that will need to work on the themes we already
> >>>>>>>> have to include the new one.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regarding colors, it looks like Material is parameterized around
> >>>>>>>>>a
> >>>>>>>>> couple
> >>>>>>>>> of colors. So if we did our skins to work against parameterized
> >>>>>>> colors
> >>>>>>>>> then would it really matter what color we choose?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's completly right. I could make wireframe based on two or
> >>>>>>>>three
> >>>>>>>> colors
> >>>>>>>> and as you change it in CSS all controls should tint
> >>>>>>>> consistently.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regarding Basic components, right now Checkbox is a <label><input
> >>>>>>>>> type="check"/>caption</label>. AIUI, you cannot style the
> >>>>>>>>><input>
> >>> on
> >>>>>>>>> many
> >>>>>>>>> browsers, so I think we have to have a different set of elements
> >>>>>>>>>in
> >>> a
> >>>>>>>>> checkbox. It looks like Bootstrap uses:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <label><input type="check"/><span />Caption</label>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where the span uses a special symbol font with checked and
> >>>>>>>>>unchecked
> >>>>>>>>> boxes.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's what we need to figure. Should we make themes available in
> >>>>>>> Basic?
> >>>>>>>> if
> >>>>>>>> so, has basic the right implementation?
> >>>>>>>> If not, and if we don't want to change the actual very basic
> >>>>>>>> implementation, we need to put some "skin" implementation
> >>>>>>>> that at least in JS implementation I figure that will change one
> >>>>>>>>face
> >>>>>>> (the
> >>>>>>>> actual basic) with the theme face.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm thinking loud, since this is something we should explorer all
> >>>>>>> together
> >>>>>>>> mixing the best ideas of people involved
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> Alex
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/2/17, 5:15 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of
> Carlos
> >>>>>>>>> Rovira"
> >>>>>>>>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I want to expose my initial work (very very initial) on two
> >>>>>>>>>>styles
> >>>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>>>> Royale
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Wireframe:
> >>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2
> >>>>>>>>>> FtDFxQT.jpg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cfa7b1b5a7
> >>>>>>>>>> b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452649612378558&
> >>>>>>>>> sdata=%2Fk8YQxC5bDOaC
> >>>>>>>>>> D8ZfcTzpuqZyBNTKKvkFgqDgnnWZ%2BA%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (Wireframe intention is for quick Royale App prototyping, people
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>>> use
> >>>>>>>>>> this to start their applications, and then moving to it's own
> >>>>>>> styling
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>> could be another royale theme provided by us, or something done
> >>>>>>>>>>by
> >>>>>>>>> users.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Vivid (to put some temporal name):
> >>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fsnag.gy%2
> >>>>>>>>>> FqKShm0.jpg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cfa7b1b5a7
> >>>>>>>>>> b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452649612378558&
> >>>>>>>>> sdata=kxYE7ylOsXPUEeE
> >>>>>>>>>> r%2BU3AnSe9zEyqgqmsIAAYW6nVuGs%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (*Please, Notice that only the first button has some styling
> >>>>>>>>>>here*)
> >>>>>>>>>> (This theme could be the default theme for royale components
> >>>>>>>>>>like
> >>>>>>> halo
> >>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>> for mx and spark was for spark)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I want to put in place all the main components, so I would need
> >>> some
> >>>>>>>>>> "component list" (Button, TextInput, CheckBox,...and what
> >>>>>>>>>>more?.),
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> we'll be centering all the effort in only that list of
> >>>>>>>>>>components.
> >>>>>>>>>> We need to "paint" all and the code all.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The concept of theme involve a concrete set of components (and
> >>>>>>>>>>this
> >>>>>>>>> bring
> >>>>>>>>>> us again if we should do this to be pluggable for Basic, or go
> >>>>>>> directly
> >>>>>>>>>> with Express, I think even Basic should be able to use a theme
> >>> maybe
> >>>>>>>>> using
> >>>>>>>>>> beads to be PAYG)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, before continue tomorrow, I want some feedback on this:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * I think Wireframe is clearly something Black&White, maybe as I
> >>>>>>> did,
> >>>>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>>>>> some grey scale colors. But for Vivid, I'm still figuring if it
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>> something "flat" and very simple, or go with something more
> >>>>>>> elaborated
> >>>>>>>>>> since the thing I did in the example with orange button.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * I like the look and feel of Google Material, how textfields
> >>>>>>>>>>looks
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> behaves, the animations, and visual concepts. But the problem is
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>> all
> >>>>>>>>>> that visuals are clearly Google Material. Should we create
> >>> something
> >>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>> new? This has a problem that maybe we could reach something
> >>>>>>> great....or
> >>>>>>>>>> not, and is more work to iterate something until we reach a good
> >>>>>>> point.
> >>>>>>>>>> For example, the text input I created has the classic box look,
> >>>>>>>>>>for
> >>>>>>> me
> >>>>>>>>>> Material Design is better with only a bootom line, but the
> >>>>>>>>>>first is
> >>>>>>>>> more
> >>>>>>>>>> generalist, while the second is clearly google, android,... I
> >>>>>>>>>>could
> >>>>>>>>> try to
> >>>>>>>>>> think in something new a see what happens
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * In the other hand, someone would want to join me in this
> >>>>>>>>>>effort?
> >>>>>>> If
> >>>>>>>>> so I
> >>>>>>>>>> could center in the design part, and other person could work
> >>>>>>>>>>with
> >>>>>>> me on
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> example project "RoyaleThemes". The example app is very
> >>>>>>>>>>important,
> >>>>>>>>> since
> >>>>>>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>>>> could have a playground for every component so we can tweak at
> >>>>>>>>> runtime. we
> >>>>>>>>>> could even generate the code to get that look...this could be
> >>>>>>>>>>like
> >>>>>>>>>> FlexThemeManager App that we had in the Flex days.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> * About colors for the second again, don't have any preferences
> >>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>>>> now,
> >>>>>>>>>> I put the same colors that use on the web in the first button,
> >>>>>>>>>>but
> >>>>>>> as I
> >>>>>>>>>> said before things (colors and forms) could change dramatically
> >>>>>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> second set. In the first one (Wireframe) I think it's ok to go
> >>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>> path
> >>>>>>>>>> exposed in the image example.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments on this, we'll be defining what we
> >>>>>>>>>>want as
> >>>>>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> comment here ok?
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm done for today,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 2017-11-02 14:22 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>><carlosrov...@apache.org
> >>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Harbs!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> very useful, I'll be keeping this info as I make some work
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carlos
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2017-11-02 12:13 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, the kind of thing we should be striving for in theme-able
> >>>>>>>>>>>> components
> >>>>>>>>>>>> is something like this:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fvcalend
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>ar.netlify.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d5225
> >>>>>>>>>>>>0
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>> 7C636452649612378558&sdata=
> >>>>>>>>> b3VtV
> >>>>>>>>>>>> VdACL0Z2EVnIFo2%2BgqSFmJMocDL6k%2Ba6A1ewco%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fvcalen
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dar.netlify.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%
> >>> 7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7C
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> fa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>> 7C636452649612378558&sdata=
> >>>>>>>>> b3Vt
> >>>>>>>>>>>> VVdACL0Z2EVnIFo2%2BgqSFmJMocDL6k%2Ba6A1ewco%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, I worked out a theming class for my (Royale) InDesign
> >>>>>>>>> extensions
> >>>>>>>>>>>> which allows for setting global CSS at runtime. The approach
> >>>>>>> might
> >>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> useful in your theming effort:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fpaste.a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>pache.org%2FcOBC&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cfa
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452649612378558&
> >>>>>>>>> sdata=bRWKxm
> >>>>>>>>>>>> LL16u%2B48IXYdA%2FoEtLWF3eU%2FIGQzBfcVCar5g%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Fpast
> >>>>>>>>>>>> e
> >>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>apache.org%2FcOBC&data=02%7C01%7C%
> 7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d5225
> >>>>>>>>>>>>0
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> >>> 7C636452649612378558&sdata=
> >>>>>>>>> bRWKx
> >>>>>>>>>>>> mLL16u%2B48IXYdA%2FoEtLWF3eU%2FIGQzBfcVCar5g%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (Some of the code is specific to Adobe Extensions.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Some pointers:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I used inject_html because I needed some overrides in a CSS
> >>>>>>> file.
> >>>>>>>>> I
> >>>>>>>>>>>> might have been able to rework it so the CSS file was not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>needed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a function called createStyleSheet which is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>commented
> >>>>>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That creates a stylesheet called “royale_theme_styles”. It’s
> >>>>>>>>>>>>the
> >>>>>>>>> same
> >>>>>>>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>>>>>> including a blank css file with the same name, but it’s loaded
> >>>>>>>>>>>> dynamically
> >>>>>>>>>>>> rather than requiring the file to be included. If that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>function
> >>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> used
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inject_html is not necessary.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The order of dynamically loaded CSS has the same rules as CSS
> >>>>>>>>> loaded
> >>>>>>>>>>>> via declaring it in HTML and the later ones override the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>earlier
> >>>>>>>>> ones.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> We
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can probably take advantage of that for different levels of
> >>>>>>>>> defaults.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harbs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 8:05 PM, Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>> <carlosrov...@apache.org
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:carlosrov...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I could start to try what Harbs expose, although I
> >>>>>>> think
> >>>>>>>>>>>> what I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will need in the end is to control some SVG parts with
> >>>>>>> variables.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the showed SVG/CSS relation could be sufficient. I'll
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> showing
> >>>>>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> limitations I find. As well as Alex said having inline SVG
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
> >>>>>>>>> HTML
> >>>>>>>>>>>> would be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> very useful.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2017-11-01 18:27 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com
> >>>>>>> <mailto:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> harbs.li...@gmail.com>>:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I’m not sure. I haven’t seen problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only issues that come to mind are:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. There’s no load events on SVG images on Microsoft
> >>>>>>> browsers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Chrome has issues with SVG, transforms and fractional
> >>>>>>> pixels.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. There’s some blending issues that different browsers
> >>>>>>> handle
> >>>>>>>>>>>> differently
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depending on isolation modes.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There’s likely other issues, but these are ones that I’ve
> >>>>>>> had to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> deal
> >>>>>>>>>>>> with.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The major gotcha in terms of mixing HTML and SVG is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTML
> >>>>>>>>> can
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested inside SVG without ForeignObject. ForeignObject does
> >>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> full
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> browser support.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 1, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Alex Harui
> >>>>>>>>> <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:aha...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A couple of years ago, I thought I had learned that some
> >>>>>>>>> browsers
> >>>>>>>>>>>> had
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues with SVG background-images. Maybe psuedo-states
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>were
> >>>>>>>>>>>> involved,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a Button might "blink" as it changed states and loaded an
> >>>>>>> SVG
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background-image. Do we know if that was just a bug in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> browser
> >>>>>>>>>>>> or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that still a concern?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I would like to see a simple set of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HTML/SVG/CSS/JS
> >>>>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> shows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any declarative SVG and JS have to work together to handle
> >>>>>>>>>>>> resizable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> skins/components. Then it might be more obvious what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>needs
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> change in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the tooling. We allow inline HTML now in MXML. I think
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we
> >>>>>>>>>>>> can/should
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allow inline SVG, but for both inline HTML and SVG, id's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> inline
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content do not become id's to MXML and AS.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HTH,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Alex
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>>>>>>>>>> 2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cfa7b1
> >>>>>>>>>>> b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452649612378558&
> >>>>>>>>> sdata=C7a72gwfH2
> >>>>>>>>>>> 64wTla%2Fl%2FT9fLB5ODZWiSnRqIzGfFCREU%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >>>>>>>>>> Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250
> >>>>>>>>> 0f48%7Cfa7b1b5
> >>>>>>>>>> a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452649612378558&
> >>>>>>>>> sdata=C7a72gwfH264w
> >>>>>>>>>> Tla%2Fl%2FT9fLB5ODZWiSnRqIzGfFCREU%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeo
> >>>>>>>> scopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6422929d95d1406eaa1c08d52295
> >>>>>>> d8cf%7Cfa7b1b5a7b
> >>>>>>>> 34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452949347201523&
> >>>>>>> sdata=Hm%2B6WIcqQTOHs0
> >>>>>>>> UppUdckW%2FhhyzErprotQUOZNtUtXU%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Director General
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.codeos
> >>>>>>>> copic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6422929d95d1406eaa1c08d52295
> >>>>>>> d8cf%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3
> >>>>>>>> 4438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452949347201523&
> >>>>>>> sdata=Hm%2B6WIcqQTOHs0U
> >>>>>>>> ppUdckW%2FhhyzErprotQUOZNtUtXU%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> >>>>>>>> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>>>> https%3A%2F%2Favant2.e
> >>>>>>>> s%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7C6422929d95d1406eaa1c08d52295
> >>>>>>> d8cf%7Cfa7b1b5a
> >>>>>>>> 7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636452949347201523&
> >>>>>>> sdata=b%2FFMr1Ajit94
> >>>>>>>> TOU%2BjWNuqeN%2FKAiwo7%2BpEVTx8mWLCSc%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> >>>>>>> contener
> >>>>>>>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este
> >>>>>>>>mensaje
> >>>>>>> por
> >>>>>>>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta
> >>>>>>>>misma
> >>>>>>> vía y
> >>>>>>>> proceda a su destrucción.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> >>>>>>>> comunicamos
> >>>>>>>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> >>>>>>> CODEOSCOPIC
> >>>>>>>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación
> >>>>>>>>del
> >>>>>>>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de
> >>>>>>>>acceso,
> >>>>>>>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> >>>>>>>> nuestras
> >>>>>>>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> >>> documentación
> >>>>>>>> necesaria.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >>>>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >>>>>> Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cbb03216ec0b84fcb6ab108d52397
> >>>>> 82e0%7Cfa7b1b5
> >>>>>> a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636454056000808812&
> >>>>> sdata=wYPMWW1wpTbtm
> >>>>>> pTt%2F%2FmFuHwgl5nHByLpMuG0lUVba9w%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.co
> >>>>deoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfc2dc02415b446e995108d52494
> 5950%7Cfa7b
> >>>>1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636455141932227764&
> sdata=Cszs7Ln
> >>>>LaXf9z%2F9Dv7l%2Ba%2BxZJM%2FxOMqs8FFbzO061Cc%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>
> >>>> Carlos Rovira
> >>>>
> >>>> Director General
> >>>>
> >>>> M: +34 607 22 60 05
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cod
> >>>>eoscopic.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfc2dc02415b446e995108d52494
> 5950%7Cfa7b1
> >>>>b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636455141932227764&
> sdata=Cszs7LnL
> >>>>aXf9z%2F9Dv7l%2Ba%2BxZJM%2FxOMqs8FFbzO061Cc%3D&reserved=0
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto!
> >>>><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Favant
> >>>>2.es%2F%23video&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfc2dc02415b446e995108d52494
> 5950%7Cfa
> >>>>7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636455141932227764&
> sdata=iMuUY
> >>>>4Y%2FdwWAKXOXR%2BlHO9WIWPnOjdlrTCBjC0t2QUQ%3D&reserved=0>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario y puede
> >>>>contener
> >>>> información privilegiada o confidencial. Si ha recibido este mensaje
> >>>>por
> >>>> error, le rogamos que nos lo comunique inmediatamente por esta misma
> >>>>vía
> >>> y
> >>>> proceda a su destrucción.
> >>>>
> >>>> De la vigente Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (15/1999), le
> >>> comunicamos
> >>>> que sus datos forman parte de un fichero cuyo responsable es
> >>>>CODEOSCOPIC
> >>>> S.A. La finalidad de dicho tratamiento es facilitar la prestación del
> >>>> servicio o información solicitados, teniendo usted derecho de acceso,
> >>>> rectificación, cancelación y oposición de sus datos dirigiéndose a
> >>> nuestras
> >>>> oficinas c/ Paseo de la Habana 9-11, 28036, Madrid con la
> >>>>documentación
> >>>> necesaria.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Piotr Zarzycki
> >>
> >> Patreon:
> >>*https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfc2dc02415b446e995108d52494
> 59
> >>50%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636455141932227764&sdata=
> >>3KxMJ3IlEbtNDN7WtgzdqILz8LlPRtjjL%2FP61nzmgrM%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pat
> >>reon.com%2Fpiotrzarzycki&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cdfc2dc02415b446e995108d52494
> 59
> >>50%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%
> 7C636455141932227764&sdata=
> >>3KxMJ3IlEbtNDN7WtgzdqILz8LlPRtjjL%2FP61nzmgrM%3D&reserved=0>*
> >
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
