I couldn't resist - http://tomsondev.bestsolution.at/2013/08/07/using-less-in-javafx/
Tom On 08.08.13 01:08, John Smith wrote: > >> So if you invent the same node-types you have on the web (lets face it >> there's only a handful of them most important are most likely div,span) and >> give them the same properties you know from the web you can copy your >> Web-CSS stylesheet to your FX-Application. > > +1 to this idea (in a 3rd party lib). > >> The issue I see is that JavaFX CSS significantly differs from W3C CSS > > It surprises me that this issue comes up so rarely in JavaFX forums (almost > never) - perhaps it is because JavaFX developers tend to be Java developers > rather than designers. > > A related open jira request is http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-9272 > "need to reconcile JavaFX CSS with W3C CSS3" 0 votes (no interest at all?). > > In terms of conversion of existing html css resources to javafx css, you may > be interested in a Q&A with a developer who converted the Foundation look and > feel to JavaFX (https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2490009) - from his point of > view the conversion process was quite straight-forward - though perhaps that > was partially luck of the draw. > > Below is a copy and paste from an earlier JavaFX forum post on this topic: > > You know, sometimes I find JavaFX's lack of certain css features refreshing. > It is nice to have all, well, almost all, of the JavaFX CSS documented on one > page. I think if you were to do the same thing for w3c css then it would end > up with a much larger, more difficult to understand document and even what > the contents of that document should be would probably be pretty > controversial, in the same kind of way that the HTML5 specification ended up > being. Microsoft contributed over 7000 tests to w3c just to cover only a > subset of the css rules available in browsers today. The webkit project lists > almost a thousand open CSS bugs: > https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?product=WebKit&component=CSS&resolution=---. > So implementing even partial w3c CSS support is a complex project. > > When I first started using JavaFX CSS I found the differences to w3c CSS > quite jarring, and it was hard to account for them. Now that I am used to > JavaFX CSS, I don't have as much of an issue. The difference in names and > semantics is going to be an impediment to designers working on JavaFX who are > familar with w3c CSS - but the designers will quickly also discover that FXML > is not HTML and Java is not JavaScript and JavaFX deployment is not HTML > deployment. So, perhaps, in the larger picture, it is not as big a deal as it > would seem. Still, one can't help think that any impediment to people easily > picking up and adopting JavaFX is doing the technology a disservice. > > There are other advantages in having the JavaFX CSS in its own namespace to > w3c css, in that it can evolve seperately, it is not expected to be exactly > the same because it has a different name, it is not expected to fully > implement w3c css as browsers do because it's clearly a different thing by > name, etc. There is even precedent for it in the use by mozilla of moz- CSS > prefixes and webkit css properties http://css-infos.net/properties/webkit - > the web as not as standard as a lot of people propose. JavaFX CSS is backing > a JavaFX rendering engine and not an HTML rendering engine. It is quite > remarkable that Oracle was able to build and make available a CSS model for > JavaFX that feels as familiar as it does to w3c css, as w3c css is targeted > very strongly toward styling a completely different technology set (HTML > markup and document object model). > > It would be useful to have a tool which translates w3c css to approximations > of JavaFX css and vice versa, or the ability for JavaFX to have a mode > (perhaps a boolean value when a stylesheet is loaded) to perform an automatic > alias or mapping of w3c css to javafx (at least for the subset of w3c css > which would make sense to automatically translate to JavaFX css). (David > commented on this part previously - "Closing the gap between JavaFX CSS and > W3C CSS will be an evolutionary process. It would be nice to use a standard's > based stylesheet but there is not always a 1-1 mapping to JavaFX. But for > those properties that can be mapped, it is something that should be > supported. For example, we should be able to handle "font" or "-fx-font".") > > Comments above relate to the naming and semantic meanings of css tags, and > not the syntax and parsing of css (as both w3c css and javaFX css seem to be > equivalent in the later regard). > > The JavaFX css model is really powerful and I have found really useful some > of the additions that it adds above the baseline 2.1 css that is found > consistently in browsers. With the upcoming Java CSS object model > http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-17293 "CSS Style Object Model in Java" > 23 votes, you will also get better programmatic access from Java, which seems > to be a highly requested feature. > > Regards, > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net > [mailto:openjfx-dev-boun...@openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Tom Schindl > Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 2:01 PM > To: openjfx-dev@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: Proposal to move default style-class from Control to SkinBase > > Oh and one more thing: IIRC you can run e.g. less in rhino so feeding it a > less file with -fx properties should get you css file which you can pass on > to FX. > > Tom > > On 07.08.13 22:56, Tom Schindl wrote: >> If I get your complain right what you want has nothing to do with CSS >> but you are requesting that the complete FX API is remodeled, CSS is >> simply a way to set properties of your Nodes in the SceneGraph, in a >> none intrusive way. >> >> You need to differiate between CSS as a language and the properties >> one can set on DOM/SceneGraph-Nodes. >> >> >From the selector point (language) of view FX-CSS support all >>> important >> selector types, but because the nodes in the DOM (=SceneGraph in FX) >> are different you have other properties. >> >> So if you invent the same node-types you have on the web (lets face it >> there's only a handful of them most important are most likely >> div,span) and give them the same properties you know from the web you >> can copy your Web-CSS stylesheet to your FX-Application. >> >> Tom >> >> On 07.08.13 22:41, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote: >>> Hi David, >>> >>> I'm not going to directly answer your question but I'm rather gonna >>> touch on a problem I see regarding JavaFX CSS. Forgive me for not >>> directly sticking to the subject of your email. >>> >>> The issue I see is that JavaFX CSS significantly differs from W3C >>> CSS, that is the CSS that is used on the web. >>> I've already touch this subject before but didn't have much answer >>> from this mailing list. The reason why I bring it back again is that >>> the more I do web development the more this seems unappropriated. >>> >>> Having JavaFX CSS differ from W3C CSS has the following disadvantages: >>> >>> - Designers coming from web development (they are the majority) will >>> struggle with JavaFX CSS >>> - Cannot use CSS pre-processors like SASS, LESS, Compass thus missing >>> out on this tooling that significantly enhances CSS. You can do really >>> cool >>> stuff with Compass. >>> - Cannot reuse what already is out there on the web. And there are a >>> huge amount of examples there. >>> - Re-inventing the wheel. My personal opinion is that you should try to >>> harness the work that already exists especially when you have few >>> resources. People have already spent some time on this, tested and fixed >>> issues with it. So why not "stand on the shoulder of giants". >>> >>> I'm not saying you should introduce CSS layout, that is a headache >>> and a problem that they're trying to solve in CSS3, but all the rest >>> can be changed to be the same as CSS. You can even have both working >>> side by side, the current JavaFX CSS and a newer more W3C conforming >>> CSS so that you don't break existing apps. >>> >>> I don't see any advantage of having a CSS different from W3C one, if >>> I was going to make one different I would have created a newer more >>> simpler language to express an apps appearance. Not used CSS. >>> >>> Thanks, best regards, >>> >>> >>> >> >
