Hi, Right now I have no enough knowledge to vote in this feature. One thing I didn't like, and I already mentioned it before, is some of us were waiting for 9.x to be released some time ago (at least a few months ago I was preparing some branch of our application and ported it to 9.x, after asking about release plans) and all of the sudden this feature is introduced and all sub-frameworks depending on Wicket will have to be adapted. Thus in practice the release of 9.x. by itself, with new CSS feature, will not bring any immediate value to many users as this will break most existing applications.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:34 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> wrote: > [+] leave as is with .wicket--hidden & wicket-core.css > > IMO we should sheep the version which will work as expected out-of-the-box > According to my tests `hidden` attribute doesn't work (even `display: > flex` breaks it) > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:22, Andrea Del Bene <an.delb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > +1 to vote. I find your concerns legitimate > > > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:54 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > we have a disagreement on how to style hidden elements in Wicket 9.x. > > > > > > Due to the new CSP support we can no longer use inline styling to hide > > > elements. > > > WICKET-6725 introduces new CSS classes and a file wicket-core.css. > > > > > > I don't think this is a good approach: > > > > > > - it adds a CSS file that is referenced by each page (after Wicket > doing > > > fine without it for 15 years) > > > - the CSS is a mingle-mangle of out-of-date stylings (see > > > .wicket--hidden-fields) > > > - it's a kitchen-sink for left-over styles (see .wicket--color-red) > > > - it introduces a new class naming scheme not used anywhere else > (wicket--) > > > > > > IMHO we should remove that file again (and the required infrastructure > > > in ResourceSettings/WebApplication) and just > > > use the HTML5 "hidden" attribute instead, whenever we want to hide > > > something (Component, Form, ...). > > > This "just works" in all browsers and is semantically correct. It has > > > one caveat when an application's CSS changes the default styling of > > > hidden elements (see > > > https://css-tricks.com/the-hidden-attribute-is-visibly-weak), but > that's > > > in the responsibility of the application developer. > > > AjaxIndicatorAppender can just render a CSS class and leave the styling > > > to the application developer, nobody will be happy with the default > > > "red" anyway. > > > > > > Thus I'll be starting a vote in the next days with the following two > > > options: > > > > > > [] leave as is with .wicket--hidden & wicket-core.css > > > > > > [] use HTML5 "hidden" attribute instead > > > > > > This isn't the vote yet, it's just the announcement. > > > Maybe others see a third (forth?) option or want to raise their > concerns > > > first. > > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Andrea Del Bene. > > Apache Wicket committer. > > > > -- > WBR > Maxim aka solomax > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
