see inline for some random thoughts. :) I'm glad you brought this up,
because I need to come up with a solution soon for our internal project
that we are working on so that our developers can write their renderers
correctly.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello all,
I raised that issue a while back, but now it's a bit more important since
I'm trying to finalize ADFFACES-49 issue. What selector synthax do you
prefer for states:
1.1. <component>::<subPart>:<state>
1.2. <component>:<state>::<subPart>.
We use both syntaxes, and they mean different things.
1.1 means this: The subPart of the component is in this state.
For example:
af|train::stop:disabled (when this train's stop is disabled, then style
the stop like this)
af|train:disabled::stop (when the entire train is disabled, style all
the stops like this)
1.2 means this: The component is in this state, and this is the subpart.
For example:
af|inputText:disabled::content (when the af:inputText disabled="true",
then style the content piece like this)
I prefer the former and it's easier to implement. However, we already have
some :disabled that use the latter synthax.
Secondly, there's also the issue raised by Jeanne, how should we manage
which states are intercepted and which should pass through and be copied
in the final CSS:
2.1. Use a component specific list, so that :disabled could pass through
for some components but get intercepted for some others? If that solution
is selected, how/where should we configure that list, in the
faces-config's metadata?
I like this one the best because let's say I use :disabled and I
intercept it and do some funky things with it. Then let's say I decide
that the css spec deals
with :disabled perfectly fine, and I don't need to intercept it.
Also, let's say :hover and :active work great on some dom elements, but
do they work for everything?
Let's say I have this: <span class="myText">Hello!</span> and this css:
.myText {color: black}
.myText:hover {color:red}
Does this work? (not in my tests)
But what if this represents a component. I might want them to be able to
specify .myText:hover and have it work even if the built-in browser
support wasn't there.
So I would want
af|myComponent:hover to work.
I'd render this
<span class="af_myComponent p_AFHover">Hello!</span>
when they are hovering over my span.
2.2. Use a list of pseudo-classes passing through for all components. Such
list would have to be based on W3C, but as Jeanne observed, such list
would break our :disabled that we're intercepting currently and could lead
to som.e problems if more pseudo-classes are added in future version of
CSS.
Yes, I'd have to change the name of :disabled. But so far that is the
only css valid pseudo-class that I use to date.
We have others like :hover (see above... if we don't want this to pass
through, we'll need to change it to something else).
2.3. Use a static list of pseudo-classes to intercept used by all
components? If so, where should we place it? This solution probably has
the same flaws as 2.2 if a new pseudo-classes i nthe CSS specification
matches a name defined in the intercept list.
2.4. Use a prefix for intercepted pseudo-classes like the -ora- used for
properties?
I like this second best. If we did this, then I'd suggest that we also
prefix the pseudo-elements.
The problem is, taking my :hover example, some components might be
rendered such that the browser
automatically works with :hover on the generated css, but others don't,
so those that don't have to have
:-tri-hover ?
My votes are:
+1 for 1.1
+1 for 2.2, but I would not place states resolvable during rendering in
that list, so that disabled is still intercepted.
