AIUI, the issue is how it is possible, if at all, to use position:absolute or
position:relative selectively in the DOM. IIRC, it isn't a matter of creating
a descendant selector for the object you want to position, it is setting the
position style on all of its parents without affecting any other of the other
children of those parents in the DOM that might not be expecting position to be
set. Because position not only changes the position, but it seems to affect
what offsetWidth is of those parents.
I haven't looked at existing JS frameworks and successful JS websites. Maybe
position is an "all-or-nothing" kind of choice. You have to decide to use it
and deal with setting position!=static throughout the DOM, or use it in many
places and pick a few offsetParents to base all of your math on, or not use it
all and rely on margins and padding and other tricks. Note that Flex does not
support margins and Royale can, so maybe proper use of margin can eliminate
some of the reliance on x,y in Royale.
So it may be that we need different groups of beads to allow these three
choices. If you choose position!=static you use a particular bead and it uses
different handlers for x,y,width/height. And maybe we should make a
"RelativeToMeBead" that you stick on a UI widget and all children x,y is
relative to that.
So maybe, Royale should provide choices. What is really hard and not PAYG is
trying to make one method handle all of these situations.
Just thinking out loud,
-Alex
On 6/11/18, 12:36 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
We could always have a bead which sets:
.foo *{
position: static;
}
To reset the defaults of all elements below “foo” to static.
Of course to change it to something else, you’d need:
.foo .baz{
position: absolute;
}
I’m not sure how well this would work with the Jewel layout beads. I’m not
sure what the specificity is on that.
Harbs
> On Jun 11, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> The emulation Application is based on Container and thus creates a Div.
It may not stay that way, but we did it so that the SystemManager can parent
the app like it does in Flex.
>
> Feel free to commit the bead. It won't hurt anything and some folks will
be able to use it. I'm still wondering what the right answer is going to be
for the emulation component sets. Or what to do if someone does have some part
of the DOM that they do not want style.position set. There is no CSS way to
specify "set style on all parents", AFAIK, which is would help reduce
side-effects.
>
> Later,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/8/18, 9:02 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting idea, but I thought there was concern about the global
selector affecting HTML around the app?
>
> Currently, we don’t have an Application class that attaches to regular
divs It always controls the body element. Since we control the whole page, it’s
not a problem. If we do get to the point where a Royale app can be injected
into a random div, then setting a global selector might be a problem if there’s
other HTML which relies on static. We can have heavier-duty beads to deal with
setting relative positioning in those cases.
>
> Harbs
>
