The goal is to make it easy to fill in with simple HTML when there is no
ready-to-go FLexJS components.
I’d like to be able to use MXML to mark up some HTML and just have the CSS
For example, I just tried using this https://stackoverflow.com/a/39846603
<https://stackoverflow.com/a/39846603> and it was much harder than I thought it
It looks like I’m going to need to create a component which wraps the
functionality rather than just being able to use:
<js:Div width="100%" height="20">
<js:Div className="cropslider round"/>
By “full wrapper” I meant a full set of wrappers.
> On Aug 13, 2017, at 1:08 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
> I don't understand your goal. What is a "full wrapper"? Many Basic
> component already wrap HTMLElements.
> I think there is another set that has the same name as the HTML elements,
> like Div, A, etc.
> On 8/12/17, 2:56 PM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com
> <mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Changing the namespace is not enough.
>> The package path of Basic is org.apache.flex.html. Unless we change the
>> package path of HTML to be different than Basic, classes cannot be named
>> the same…
>>> On Aug 13, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Namespace for HTML components.
>>> The list of HTML components is not complete.
>>> For example, Label does not exist in HTML. It only exists in Basic. The
>>> Label there inserts various formatting which is normally expected.
>>> I’d like to fill out the HTML components to be full wrappers for simple
>>> HTML elements but there will be collisions with the “Basic” components.
>>> Currently the HTML components use library://ns.apache.org/flexjs/basic
>>> <library://ns.apache.org/flexjs/basic>> as their namespace. I think it
>>> makes sense to change that to library://ns.apache.org/flexjs/html
>>> <library://ns.apache.org/flexjs/html <library://ns.apache.org/flexjs/html>>
>>> Any objections to making that change?