On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 9:54 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > [] leave as is with .wicket--hidden & wicket-core.css > > [] use HTML5 "hidden" attribute instead >
While it is true that Wicket hasn't depended on a CSS file for its own use, it has been dependent on its own styles, spread out through our code in odd ways. The fact that we now have to own up to this by having to ship a stylesheet file of our own after 15 years, sounds more like 15 years of neglect and harassment of our users than an actual achievement. I consider not having a wicket stylesheet file a bug, not a feature. Having an actual Wicket css file means that our styles are *finally* documented and available for our users to accommodate, rather than strewn out through our code base and hidden in style attributes, only to be discovered through perusing the generated markup or ample browsing through java code. This is a great benefit: want to know what Wicket uses for styling? Here's the file! Furthermore, the wicket-core css file can be easily disabled if one desires so (then you have add your own implementations of those classes to your own css file), or overridden (e.g. wicket-bootstrap can provide its own core css file). And we provide the default template as well... This doesn't mean that I want us to ship a full bootstrap/material like CSS styling with Wicket, but rather only those parts that ensure that applications keep working. When something as simple as using flex or display:block on a div breaks the hidden attribute [1] we should not depend on it working. Telling folks to 'just add some arbitrary css to your styling to fix this attribute so some parts of your page remain invisible', is not a suitable substitute for providing our own css. Martijn [1] https://meowni.ca/hidden.is.a.lie.html
