So it seems we need to wire up a similar functionality to spark SkinnableComponent to get parts of a component or view (AS3 class) match thinks in a skin (SVG, and eventually MXML in flash side), isn't it?
We need [SkinPart] metadata, right? 2014-02-27 1:03 GMT+01:00 OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Sorry, wasn't clear. > > > > Thanks for reminding me that FXG is a class linked into the SWF and > > referenced as a class by the AS code. On the JS side, do we want that > FXG > > class to be a "class" (its own JS file that loads or has SVG data in it)? > > Or is more "conversion" needed. > > > > > I have been thinking of a spark skin (ex. spark button skin) having an > equivalent SVG document on the JS side. The button class itself will have > an equivalent in js. > > Example: > TextButton.as + TextButtonSkin.mxml === TextButton.js + TextButtonSkin.svg > > The TextButtonSkin.mxml links all the required FXGs to make up the various > button states' visuals. It also has the code required to switch the > states, etc. The same thing happens in TextButtonSkin.svg - it contains > all the SVG elements and the JS code (or SMIL) > > I suppose this is quite similar to the spark architecture. > > > > On the JS side, is there is a way to embed SVG data in an HTML page? > > > > There are multiple ways to this - > * inline svg code in HTML, > * use <embed> element (what I have used in this case) > * use <object> element > * use <img> element > > <embed> seems to be safe to use across most modern browsers, whereas > <object> has browser support issues + security restrictions. <img> element > is useless to us because it causes the SVG to lose its interactivity. > > I suppose we can also directly emebed SVG in HTML, it seems safe to use > these days [1] > > [1] http://caniuse.com/#feat=svg-html5 > > > > > > -Alex > > > > On 2/26/14 12:59 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2/26/14 12:42 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> >>3. Falcon should be able to compile FXG now, but I think it will use > > >> >>Spark > > >> >> components like Group. The compiler either needs to output > different > > >> >> primitives or we need to fake up lighter weight Spark components. > > >>I'd > > >> >> strongly prefer the first option. > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> >I think I understand. Can we break this up into a very simple use > case > > >> >and > > >> >see which direction we want to go? I may need a bit of hand holding > on > > >> >this one. > > >> > > >> Was FXG always embedded? > > >> > > >> > > >You can also instantiate it just like a component in MXML. If you embed > > >it, the compiler seems to rasterize it and you will lose the scaling, > etc. > > >properties that makes vectors so attractive. > > > > > > > > >> Is there a way to "embed" SVG? > > >> > > > > > >Yes, just like an image: > > > > > >[Embed(source="logo.svg")] > > >[Bindable] > > >public var imgCls:Class; > > > > > >Adobe had deprecated it. But, at Apache Flex, we un-deprecated it a > while > > >ago. > > > > > >Thanks, > > >Om > > > > > > > > >> > > >> Anyway, yes a simple test case would help us find the desired workflow > > >>and > > >> fix what is needed. > > >> > > >> -Alex > > >> > > >> > > > > > -- Carlos Rovira Director de Tecnología M: +34 607 22 60 05 F: +34 912 94 80 80 http://www.codeoscopic.com http://www.directwriter.es http://www.avant2.es
