Hi Harbs, If we go with Basic as seems everybody suggest, I think we should not mix with Express. We can "copy" some Express knowledge, but not make it dependent, to avoid having a Frankenstein Basic is the core, and from there we have Express and the new stylizable set
2017-11-05 22:01 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > 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% > 7Cbb03216ec0b84fcb6ab108d52397 > > >> 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% > 7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250 > > >>>>>> 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% > 7C203485b5b9c744aed92608d52250 > > >>>>>> 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 > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > <http://www.codeoscopic.com> > > > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > > > Director General > > > > > > M: +34 607 22 60 05 > > > > > > http://www.codeoscopic.com > > > > > > > > > Conocenos Avant2 en 1 minuto! <https://avant2.es/#video> > > > > > > > > > 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://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
