More comments inline. Which way are you leaning? - Jeanne
Simon Lessard wrote:
Hello Jeanne, Thanks for the complete answer. On 8/21/06, Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Hi Simon, Thanks for the email. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>We use both syntaxes, and they mean different things. >>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) >> >> > >Agreed. > > > >>>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) >> >> > >It works in Firefox, not IE, as usual. W3C specifies that :hover should >work with everything, but it's not like all browsers will support >everything W3C says anytime soon. Maybe we should intercept all >pseudo-classes, if it can be resolved on Java side (like :disabled), we>resolve it there and it never pass through so we prevent all bad support>from the browser. For states that cannot be resolved in Java, we could ask >the Agent if it supports the specified pseudo-class for the generated>element (link:hover works in IE, but not on anything else). If the agent >supports it, we let the class pass through to the generated CSS file, if>the agent does not, then we could add some JS code to emulate it. > > We generate the css file before we render the components, so when you say we should intercept all pseudo-classes and if it can be resolved on the Java side, we should resolve it. But how would we know at this point where we are going to render the pseudo-class? that af|foo:hover will be generated on a link? Maybe af|foo:hover is on a <span>, but af|foo::step:hover is on the link. (we would know if we kept the skinning-key -> pseudo-class to resolve map). Or do you mean literally that if we can resolve it on the Java side -- even if the browser can as well -- we go ahead and do that?I mean litterally that we make a list of pseudo-classes that we know we can always resolve during rendering, like :disabled, and always intercept it. Ina sense it would be a way to cover browsers' lack of support for those pseudo-classes. In the case of :hover, do we pass that through for IE or not? Let's saywe don't pass it through for IE. Then we'll need some code that gets :hover and says, oh, we are on IE, so don't pass this through but instead do some onmouseover + css magic. This seems like it could get messy fast.Fair point, the renderers would have to check if there's a selector using :hover defined in the current skin and add some JS, it's messy indeed.The main problem I have the "per component" option is the potential >performance overhaul it represents as well as the increased component >development complexity (since you have to put more information in the >metadata). > > I don't think of this as a performance hit, since this will happen at the css generation time, not with every renderer. And we cache the generated css file. It would be like the map I have now in FileSystemStyleCache.Small question here. When is the CSS generated exactly? Is it at startup or at the first request for a given skin family? If it is during startup, theperformance hit is indeed a non issue.
rendered in StyleSheetRenderer. We get it out of the cache if it is there, otherwise we generate it.
However, we would need to keep the renderer and this map in sync. For myrenderer 'foo', I know that I want to handle 'hover' myself, so I put the hover -> p_AFHover in the map that will be consulted when we generate the css file. af|foo:hover does not pass through. All other :hover passes through. I don't think this is that terrible. I like this better than the prefix, because if, down the line, we decide that we can pass through the pseudo-class, the user's skin will not have to change, but our code will get simpler.Not that bad, but I kind of dislike hard coded lists as component developerswon't be able to use the skinning feature without giving it to Trinidad project since they will have to hack Trinidad's jar file to add their own states to the map. If that way is chosen, I would rather use anotherconfiguration file or some faces-config meta-data entries. For now skin isnot a public API, but I'm prety sure it will become one at some point in time.
We definitely need to get it out of FileSystemStyleCache. No doubt about it.
The prefix is ok, but I find it a bit counter intuitive since the user has >to know which states will be handled by browser and which are managed by>Trinidad. I would prefer to hide that kind of low level implementation >details to skinners. > > We would definitely document all the -tri- pseudo-classes per skinning key. For example: af|inputText:-tri-required, af|inputText:-tri-read-only, af|inputText:-tri-disabled. But for af|train::stop-link, we'd document that they can use :hover.It works, but it's a bit ugly imho. Furthermore, as you pointed out, such solution would force skin CSS changes if we beside to let any given state pass through in the future.
true.
On a side note that could lead to a new post, what should we do with >icons? Currently the engine considers a selector an icon one if it ends >with -icon. This lead to some strange selectors sometimes like >-icon-style-class simply to prevent the parser to interpret it as an icon. >Maybe we should add something like :::icon, ::tri-icon or --icon? That way >there will be no ambiguity left. > > I don't have a problem with saying -icon-style when what you mean is that you want to style the icon, and ending the key with -icon when it means an icon.It's not that bad, true, but do we have a doc somewhere to document thiskind of skinning rules? If not, should I add a wiki entry for it even if theAPI is not public yet? Other things interesting I see are FileSystemCache and the mandatory "af" namespace.
We don't have a skinning document for Trinidad developers (as opposed to application developers using Trinidad). Starting a wiki would be great. I can populate it with some information I have.
Yeah, the namespace is purely to make it so that the skinner knows there are Trinidad keys. We need to change these to tr for one thing. The code might be a little bit hardcoded to use 'af', so that will need to change. We don't honor the actual namespace in that you can't add @namespace to the top of the css file and then be able to use whatever prefix you want. That was very low priority when I was doing the skinning, and I'm not so sure we'd want to do that anyway, becuase what would we do, substitute the namespace for the prefix? Then our css would be huge. :) Maybe some day the browsers would work with the @namespace, and when that happens we can render it out to our css.
- Jeanne> >Regards > >¬ Simon > > > > > > >Jeanne Waldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >2006-08-18 18:27 >Please respond to adffaces-dev > > To: adffaces-dev@incubator.apache.org > cc: > Subject: Re: ADFFACES-49 inputText::content:required or >inputText:required::content > > >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. >> >> >> >> > > > > >
