Blake Sullivan wrote:
Jeanne
Waldman said the following On 4/8/2010 2:07 PM PT:
I like this idea. I was playing around with
ways to combine the last two parameters, but nothing looked good. This
looks good to me.
-tr-rule-ref: property("background-color", "af|foo{color}")
Jeanne,
I still like
background-color : -tr-property-ref("af|foo", "color")
+1
I think I like this look better, even though we don't currently have
any -tr stuff on the right hand side. It reads much better to me.
Also, the degenerative case (which probably is the normal usage) is
very clean:
background-color: -tr-property-ref("af|foo"); // this would pick up
af|foo's background-color
--Marky
better than the -tr-rule-ref versions, because I think that it looks
cleaner. I'm using a normal CSS property assignment. I'm not totally
hung up on it though and think that your version solves the problem of
remembering what all of the parameters are and what their order is.
Though the lack of values in the {} is unusual and developers might
thing that they can specify weird stuff in here, like values and
multiple properties.. I do think that advantages of reusing
-tr-rule-ref are oversold, though. Since the skin author still needs
to know about the new property() (or should it be -tr-property) and its
syntax, which seems pretty much the same as -tr-property-ref. Actually
the more I think about it, the less I like it. It isn't clear what the
the -tr-rule-ref is doing for me here--it provides no extra
information:
Here is a direct comparison, using the same name "property"
background-color : property("af|foo", "color") //
Option 2
-tr-rule-ref : property("background-color", "af|foo{color}") // Option
3'
In either case, I still need to understand what "property()" does, so
how does "-tr-rule-ref" help me? All it is doing is taking up the spot
where I want to put the property that I want to assign to, forcing me
to move it to the unnatural location as a parameter. -tr-rule-ref
works the way it does because it allows multiple properties to be
assigned at once, but if we are only picking out one property, this is
a liability.
Of course, both syntaces could support the degenerate (and most common
case) where the property names are the same. Copying the
background-color property:
background-color : property("af|foo") // Option 2
-tr-rule-ref : property("background-color", "af|foo") // Option 3'
-- Blake Sullivan
Alan Yu wrote, On 4/8/2010 12:47 PM PT:
To make it more clear, maybe we can combine
the last two parameters into a single one like: "af|foo{color}". Also,
if "{color}" is omitted, the property name specified in parameter 1
will be pulled.
Thanks,
-Alan
On 4/8/2010 11:32 AM, Jeanne Waldman wrote:
I like Option 3 as well. It's still
fairly short, and it uses a convention we already have. It is a little
unclear which parameter you are setting (background-color in this
example) and which you are pulling from the selector (color).
Alan Yu wrote, On 4/5/2010 2:31 PM PT:
Hi Jeanne,
I didn't know we have a third option to consider: -tr-rule-ref:
property("background-color", "af|foo", "color").
I'd vote for option #3 for the following reasons:
1. The syntax is consistent with -tr-rule-ref:selector(...).
2. It is intuitive if you're already familiar with
"-tr-rule-ref:selector(...)".
3. Option #2 can be confusing to the user since the keyword
"-tr-rule-ref" can be used both as a property name and a value.
4. From DT's perspective, it's easier to support since we only need to
provide another possible value (property(...), vs. selector(...) to
"-tr-rule-ref") to help with user's selection in the PI.
Thanks,
-Alan
On 4/5/2010 1:56 PM, Jeanne Waldman wrote:
you can remove the Fwd, and reply-to
[email protected].
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Trinidad][Skinning][API] Include property in CSS API
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:04:23 -0700
From: Jeanne Waldman <[email protected]>
Reply-To: MyFaces Development <[email protected]>
To: MyFaces Development <[email protected]>
References:
<[email protected]>
We don't have a -tr-include-style. We have a -tr-rule-ref:selector.
So if we did #1, I would go for -tr-rule-ref:property instead of
-tr-include-property.
1': -tr-rule-ref:property(selector="af|foo",propertyName="color",
localPropertyName="background-color")
3. -tr-rule-ref: property("background-color", "af|foo", "color"); // or
something like this to make it shorter.
Right now I'm leaning towards 2.
2':
background-color: -tr-rule-ref:property("af|foo", "color");
Marius Petoi wrote, On 4/2/2010 12:28 AM PT:
Hello,
Maybe you followed the discussions on this topic from
http://markmail.org/search/?q=skinning#query:skinning%20order%3Adate-backward+page:1+mid:4nt2ykmdnnmcyvp4+state:results
We need to decide between two alternatives for the syntax of the
"-tr-include-property". The two alternatives are:
1. -tr-include-property:
property(selector="af|foo",propertyName="color",
localPropertyName="background-color")
2. background-color : -tr-property-ref("af|foo", "color")
The advantage of the first API is that it is quite similar to the
"-tr-include-style", while for the second one that the local property
name can't be mistaken with the included property.
What do you think? Which is the best alternative?
Regards,
Marius
--
Mark Yvanovich | Software Developer
Phone: +16505065643
Oracle ADF View
200 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that
help protect the environment
|
