Hi Piotr, this issue is affecting all the code since is in basic. You can check my branch and see it yourself, If you see the html code you'll see all buttons with hardcoded style properties. What is not good at all.
2018-03-12 10:20 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com>: > Carlos, > > Does your code with mentioned issue is in jewel branch ? > > > > 2018-03-12 10:15 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org>: > > > Hi Harbs, > > > > the frameworks I'm watching are MDL, Semantic and Bootstrap (all top > > frameworks) to see what they do in different cases and guide me to find > the > > best way to implement the HTML Jewel should output in royale in Royale. > All > > of this frameworks are only HTML/JS/CSS (not builds from other code), > but I > > think that's not the point, since in the end both build front end > > interfaces with controls and layouts > > > > So are you telling me that our output is better than theirs? That our way > > of put somethings in the own html markup is better than theirs? I don't > > think so, since they do the same but with better results: better > optimized > > and less weight html code. > > > > In the other hand, you are telling me to write a bead to override or > > correct something the framework is hardcoding? I suppose you are > referring > > to a bead that removes all styles hardcoded, so that doesn't strikes out > my > > CSS styles... I think that's not the way to solve this. If I were making > an > > App maybe that's could be the solution as a workaround, but we are > > framework developers, not users. > > > > I think that solution was good to start with, but now it demands to > > refactor to something better. > > > > Harbs, are we trying to make the best framework out there? I think this > > concrete point will make people reject us when they started to see the > html > > we product all bloated with styles, when that's not necessary and can be > on > > a "first level" CSS that be part of the lib code (not a theme) and be > > included always. I think that's the right solution and we'll get the same > > we have now but in the right insertion point. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > 2018-03-11 23:19 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > > > > > If you are trying to override the values, you probably need different > > > beads. > > > > > > There’s no other well known framework which builds HTML from code. At > > best > > > they stick pseudo-code inside HTML. That’s a huge difference between > > Royale > > > and anything else. > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 2018, at 12:17 AM, Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Harbs, > > > > > > > > but you are losing one important point here: When I try to override > the > > > > value with CSS I can't since style is always take before my css. > > > > So my styles in my theme are not valid due to the styles in the > > > framework. > > > > And more over, did you see only one example out there in any > well-known > > > ui > > > > framework that puts styles in the components hard-coded? > > > > > > > > > > > > 2018-03-11 22:43 GMT+01:00 Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > >> Display:block is almost always the right choice. It’s set in the > > Layout > > > >> bead. > > > >> > > > >> I don’t agree on “clean” HTML. The only reason to use css classes is > > to > > > >> enable restyling (i.e. skinning) of an ap with different CSS sets. > > > >> Otherwise, inline CSS is probably more efficient than css files. > > > >> > > > >>> On Mar 11, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Carlos Rovira < > carlosrov...@apache.org> > > > >> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> coming back to this topic. I think is important, and that it > deserves > > > its > > > >>> own thread like I said in other one covering this and other topics. > > > >>> > > > >>> Current problem: In jewel button display is set to "inline-block", > > but > > > >>> since there's a default style, this make this assignment unused > > > (appears > > > >>> strike out in browsers, since style="display:block" takes > precedence. > > > >> This > > > >>> happens in all through any royale app what I think is something > bad. > > I > > > >>> think this is serious right? > > > >>> > > > >>> Another side effect is that we should no create any "style" in html > > > tags > > > >>> due to: > > > >>> > > > >>> * bloated code (anyone looking at the html code we produce will see > > > this > > > >>> problem and will think in this as a "bad point" for us) > > > >>> * as I notice, all styles in that tags takes precedence. And the > last > > > >> word > > > >>> should be in devs hands, not in royale framework devs hands. > > > >>> * if you see demos from other ui frameworks like material, > semantic, > > > >> etc.. > > > >>> you'll never site ugly style attributes in any tag through all the > > > demo, > > > >>> and they do what we do, so we can't say, "we must use style tags > > since > > > >>> there's no other way to do that". I think that's not true. This > > should > > > be > > > >>> what "Core" or "Basic" CSS should do. "Basic" should not say > nothing > > > >> about > > > >>> font sizes, colors, backgrounds, etc.. but should do things like > > assign > > > >>> display, other needs more near to the framework code. > > > >>> > > > >>> I propose to start looking to display:block to see how to remove, > and > > > >> then > > > >>> progress to other styles like white-space: nowrap, margins, > > > paddings...so > > > >>> we can end seeing no "style" attribute set by our framwork. > > > >>> > > > >>> So centering on display:block only: I'm trying to find where is the > > > line > > > >>> where the framework assigns "display: block" to all components to > > find > > > >>> alternatives. > > > >>> I think it should be in Basic, but after comment all lines where I > > see > > > >> this > > > >>> kind of assignament it still appears. Could someone point me to the > > > line > > > >>> where this happen? > > > >>> my thinking on this particular assignment is that it could remove > > from > > > >> all > > > >>> components easily. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> thanks > > > >>> > > > >>> -- > > > >>> Carlos Rovira > > > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Carlos Rovira > > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > > > > > -- > > Piotr Zarzycki > > Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki > <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>* > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
