It seems to me that calling addRule/insertRule a hundred times would be pretty slow (just look how many rules are in the GWT Theme CSS), not to mention there are cross-browser issues to deal with, when a simple, well-tested, mechanism exists already. Sometimes doing the 'proper' thing is not an improvement (e.g. not using tables for layout because it's "wrong")
-Ray On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <miroslav.poko...@gmail.com > wrote: > This is probably the wrong time to ask -but updating styles via the > addition of style tags seems very limiting. > > If I recall IE (cant recall which vetsion was probably 7) chokes when a > page has more than thirty odd style elements. > > Why not add new rules using StyleSheet.addRule/insertRule or appending the > new CSS to a particular stylesheet's CSS ? Using style elements to "append" > to a stylesheet seems a hack when proper mechanisms exist. > > If the StyleInjector bundle included a mechanism to say which stylesheet to > modify. > > On 04/04/2009, at 8:49 AM, Ray Cromwell <cromwell...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe so. I don't see any harm. Personally, I think if you don't have a > <head>, your page is broken, since you don't even get a <title>, but it > would be nice to either throw an informative exception, or inject a head in > this circumstance. > -Ray > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ray Ryan < <rj...@google.com> > rj...@google.com> wrote: > >> Can we add safely add head if we don't find it? >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM, < <cromwell...@gmail.com> >> cromwell...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> <http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004 >>> File user/src/com/google/gwt/dom/client/StyleInjector.java (right): >>> >>> <http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004#newcode35> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004#newcode35 >>> Line 35: "head").getItem(0)); >>> I mentioned this in another review, but this common idiom can fail if >>> the user doesn't have a <head> element, which is certainly legal. Some >>> browsers automatically insert a <head> if it's missing, but some don't. >>> I guess we could simply declare we don't support leaving out head. >>> >>> Might be good to assert head != null >>> >>> >>> <http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803> >>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803 >>> >> >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
