My comments below: On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 1:18 AM Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote: > > This seems like it might be a useful feature, if enough applications > would want to take advantage of it. > > If we proceed, I have a couple comments: > > * All of our existing CSS attributes use "-fx-" as a prefix. My > preference would be to do that for transitions as well, absent a > compelling reason to do otherwise. I note that you say in your design > doc that transition "...is special and distinct from all other CSS > properties". Is that the reason you didn't prefix it with "-fx-"? Is it > a sufficient reason?
The vendor prefix indicates a nonstandard/proprietary CSS property (see also https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#proprietary). That's the case for almost all JavaFX CSS properties (with one notable exception: "visibility"). However, "transition" is an exact implementation of the CSS standard, so there's no need to use a vendor prefix. I think that would be setting a wrong expectation, as CSS developers might think that "-fx-transition" works differently than a standard-conforming "transition" property, when in reality it's the same. > * Initially, I wondered about your providing the CSS attributes without > corresponding API on the scene graph objects in question, but I think > that's a very good idea. Note that if there's ever a compelling need to have an API on SG objects, this can be retrofitted. But I doubt that such an API would be useful. > * This will need a lot of testing since it touches the CSS attribute > resolution mechanism. Agreed.
