first results: everything seems to work as expected will continue testing On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 01:12, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > ok, let's give it a try! > > All hidden elements (hidden form fields or placeholders) are hidden via > "hidden" attribute now. > > Have fun > Sven > > > On 24.03.20 08:15, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > If you want to go ahead and remove the core CSS, please make sure all > > components keep working. For example, in wicket extensions I had to > > use the 'wicket--hidden' class in progressbar.js. Just do a grep on > > 'wicket--hidden' and double-check those components in the examples. > > > > Best regards, > > Emond > > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:29 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Let's try to remove this CSS and check :) > >> I'm currently using latest wicket SNAPSHOT at master so most probably > >> will provide some feedback :) > >> > >> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 19:51, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>> In this case I am fine to go with 'hidden'. > >>> We can introduce wicket-core.css later if needed. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:44 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Martin, > >>>> > >>>> these stylings? > >>>> > >>>> width: 0px; > >>>> height: 0px; > >>>> position: absolute; > >>>> left: -100px; > >>>> top: -100px; > >>>> overflow: hidden; > >>>> > >>>> They are a 10-year old workaround > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/b00f8ed1647f7a69a38aba562efa98bb8eb84d97 > >>>> > >>>> ... for a problem that no longer exists: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8318428/submit-form-fields-inside-displaynone-element > >>>> > >>>> A simple "display:none"/"hidden" is sufficient. > >>>> > >>>> Sven > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 20.03.20 10:29, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >>>>> Hi Sven, > >>>>> > >>>>> What about wicket--hidden-fields ? > >>>>> We still need wicket-core.css for it. > >>>>> > >>>>> Martin > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:25 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I've built an example to better demonstrate my argument: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> a) "hidden" tags work fine out-of-the-box :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://jsfiddle.net/p8s7Lrk2/1/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> b) changing display of tags changes "hidden" tags too :( > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://jsfiddle.net/p8s7Lrk2/2/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> c) and a simple fix for "hidden" tags - no !important required ... > 8) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://jsfiddle.net/p8s7Lrk2/3/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In my opinion there's no need to invent "wicket--hidden" when > "hidden" > >>>>>> works already as expected/needed (a). > >>>>>> And furthermore Wicket does not need to provide a fix (c) for > something > >>>>>> the web designer screwed up (b) in the first place. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Have fun > >>>>>> Sven > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 17.03.20 13:01, Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > >>>>>>> Hello Sven, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I always thought:having override like this will require re-testing > all > >>>>>>> 3rd-party components manually > >>>>>>> (I don't have that much time) > >>>>>>> So I'm using library as-is and override as minimum as possible :) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 18:56, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Maxim, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> what is difficult about that? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Actually it is recommended to have it in your normalize.css > (formerly > >>>>>>>> reset.css). > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here one without !important: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > https://github.com/necolas/normalize.css/blob/master/normalize.css > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sven > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 13.03.20 15:21, Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Additional note: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Bootstrap has following CSS > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> [hidden] { > >>>>>>>>> display: none !important; > >>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> which makes life much more diffiicult ... > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 21:17, Martin Grigorov < > mgrigo...@apache.org> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:13 PM Martin Grigorov < > >>>> mgrigo...@apache.org > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Sven, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> <html> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> <head> > >>>>>>>>>>> <style> > >>>>>>>>>>> /* rule from the application that should be > used > >>>> when > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> element is visible */ > >>>>>>>>>>> div { > >>>>>>>>>>> display: flex; > >>>>>>>>>>> margin-bottom: 200px; > >>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> /* Rule coming from wicket-core.css */ > >>>>>>>>>>> .wicket--hidden { > >>>>>>>>>>> display: none; > >>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> </style> > >>>>>>>>>>> </head> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> <body> > >>>>>>>>>>> <p> > >>>>>>>>>>> Element when visible: <br/> > >>>>>>>>>>> A1 <div id="blah1.1" >B1</div> C1 > <span>D1</span> > >>>>>>>>>>> <br/> > >>>>>>>>>>> </p> > >>>>>>>>>>> <p> > >>>>>>>>>>> Element when hidden (there is no B1 because > Wicket > >>>>>> renders > >>>>>>>>>>> just the tag, without any children): <br/> > >>>>>>>>>>> A2 <div id="blah1.2" hidden></div> C2 > >>>> <span>D2</span> > >>>>>>>>>>> <br/> > >>>>>>>>>>> <small><strong>C2 & D2</strong> are still > 200px > >>>>>> down > >>>>>>>>>>> because 'hidden' is not like 'display: none'! > >>>>>>>>>>> The application developer will have to do > something > >>>>>> more for > >>>>>>>>>>> the placeholder case to hide it.</small> > >>>>>>>>>>> </p> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> <p> > >>>>>>>>>>> Element with wicket--hidden class<br/> > >>>>>>>>>>> A3 <div id="blah3" > class="wicket--hidden">B3</div> > >>>> C3 > >>>>>>>>>>> <span>D3</span> > >>>>>>>>>>> <br/> > >>>>>>>>>>> <small><strong>C3 & D3</strong> are not > 200px > >>>> down > >>>>>> because > >>>>>>>>>>> of 'display: none'! > >>>>>>>>>>> The application developer has nothing to > do!</small> > >>>>>>>>>>> </p> > >>>>>>>>>>> </body> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> </html> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It shows two things: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1) since Wicket placeholder tags do not have children elements > [1] > >>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>> is not really a need to use 'hidden' or 'display: none' > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As I explained below we do need to use display: none. > >>>>>>>>>> I've forgot to update this line. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2) if we really want to hide the element without leaving extra > work > >>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> web designers then we have to use display: none > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> > https://github.com/apache/wicket/blob/10d10a92dda2e5834508f52d7807fe361f20fbea/wicket-core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/Component.java#L2370 > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:35 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I've looked at all responses and most arguments in favor of a > >>>>>> "core.css" > >>>>>>>>>>>> boil down to: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > `hidden` attribute doesn't work (even `display: flex` > breaks > >>>>>> it) > >>>>>>>>>>>> > Using the hidden attribute puts the responsibility > with the > >>>>>> developer > >>>>>>>>>>>> > where this should be on the framework. The hidden > attribute > >>>>>> just > >>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't work. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I don't share that assessment: 'hidden' works just > >>>> fine! > >>>>>>>>>>>> Every browser supports it and it has a strong semantic > meaning we > >>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>> utilize. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> If you (or your web designer) decides to style hidden > elements as > >>>>>>>>>>>> floating, static, flex, pink or with marquee ... feel free to > do > >>>> so. > >>>>>>>>>>> No. The web designer styles the element when it is supposed to > be > >>>>>> visible. > >>>>>>>>>>> But then when some condition is met Wicket may render it as a > >>>>>> placeholder > >>>>>>>>>>> for Ajax requests and then this element will be rendered. > >>>>>>>>>>> It does not have text content but the CSS rules will be still > >>>>>> applied and > >>>>>>>>>>> the web designer will have to add more rules for the cases when > >>>>>> 'hidden' is > >>>>>>>>>>> there. > >>>>>>>>>>> Most probably something like: > >>>>>>>>>>> div[hidden] { > >>>>>>>>>>> display:none; > >>>>>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Wicket doesn't need to ship a CSS file to fix anything here. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the way we are hiding components in Wicket never > exposes > >>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>>>>> sensible information anyways. This topic is just about layout > and > >>>>>>>>>>>> styling and that is completely in the responsibility of your > >>>>>> developer > >>>>>>>>>>>> ... and works out-of-the-box if you don't break it! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> What about the cases when the children need to be invisible ? > >>>>>>>>>>> .wicket--hidden-fields > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> >Wicket ... has been dependent on its own styles, spread > out > >>>>>> through > >>>>>>>>>>>> our code in odd ways > >>>>>>>>>>>> > I consider not having a wicket stylesheet file a bug, > not a > >>>>>> feature > >>>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't disagree more. These "odd ways" is one of many cool > >>>>>> features > >>>>>>>>>>>> of Wicket named "components". BTW we Wicket devs have never > been > >>>>>> very > >>>>>>>>>>>> successful in crafting CSS anyways, we shouldn't start with > this > >>>>>> now :P. > >>>>>>>>>>> We don't really start. > >>>>>>>>>>> We do not mandate styling. We just hide whatever is supposed > to be > >>>>>> hidden. > >>>>>>>>>>> Nothing more. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> As agreed (?!) earlier .wicket--color-red should be just a > marker > >>>> CSS > >>>>>>>>>>> class. The content should be provided by the application. Just > like > >>>>>>>>>>> FeedbackPanel's CSS classes. I will remove it now! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'll start a vote soon. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sidenote : This doesn't mean I'm against the CSP feature in > >>>> general! > >>>>>>>>>>>> After some iterations we arrived at a very cool solution (with > >>>> some > >>>>>>>>>>>> minor detail questions remaining). > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Have fun > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sven > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 27.02.20 22:18, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I thought of this solution as well and it will work. The > major > >>>>>>>>>>>>> advantage is that the styling is only added when it is > actually > >>>>>> used. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But it requires significantly more work to build and is a lot > >>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>>> complex than the current solution. For this, we need some > place > >>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> accumulate element styling, like we do for JS event handlers. > >>>> This > >>>>>>>>>>>>> then needs to be rendered in the response. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The most complex part is ajax updates. These might change > some of > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> styling. Simply replacing the style element will not work, > >>>> because > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> an ajax request only the added components are rendered. > >>>> Rendering a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> style element per component will work, but is far from ideal. > >>>> This > >>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> why I went for the easy solution. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Emond > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:08 PM Andrew Kondratev < > >>>>>> and...@kondratev.pro> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just as a brainstorm. Not sure if it's a good idea. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wicket potentially can add nounced style to the document > with > >>>>>> hidden > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements hidden by id. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Imagine generated HTML has components like these > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="wupb-container"> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="wupb-progressBar" id="ida"><div > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="wupb-border"><div class="wupb-background"><div > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> class="wupb-foreground"></div></div></div></div> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div class="wupb-uploadStatus" id="id9"></div> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> </div> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ida and #id9 must be hidden, so in the page header we add > >>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>>>> like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <style nonce="abracadabra"> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> #ida, #id9 {display: none;} > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> </style> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even if the wupb-progressBar has display: flex, the #ida > will > >>>>>> win. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> win even over #id8 .wupb-progressBar {display: fles} > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> !important can potentially be added. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 23:56, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > >>>>>>>>>>>> reier...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:33 PM Andrea Del Bene < > >>>>>>>>>>>> an.delb...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ernesto Reinaldo > Barreiro < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In which way sub-frameworks should be affected? I mean, > as far > >>>>>> as I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand it, if we disable CSP blocking configuration > >>>>>> everything > >>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> work "the old way", and that's why I would prefer to keep > CSP > >>>>>>>>>>>> disabled by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> default. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well if something is supported at core level then if > associated > >>>>>>>>>>>> projects > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to comply with this new feature, which might be ideal, > >>>> then > >>>>>>>>>>>> they will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to be adapted (or not?). I'm not talking about not > >>>>>> releasing the > >>>>>>>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature. I'm talking about not releasing as part of 9.x, > as it > >>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>> said to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be almost ready for release a few months ago, and deffer > it to > >>>>>> 10.x > >>>>>>>>>>>> (and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try to release it soon). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> WBR > >> Maxim aka solomax > -- WBR Maxim aka solomax
