Hi Alex, what you propose would be the more sophisticated option we can do. I could invest in that, but I need to work with you, Peter closely to complete something. I see more probable that I can design each component, at least for a first round, but I can't do the infrastructure we need to get SVG on place or other things that are more in your skills than mine.
So for me Semantic is something I could try to do and would be something that would allow many people to adopt Royale. I'll join Alex propose, if Alex, Peter and others team to make this happen with some organization and plan behind (defined UI List to complete,...) We can do both in the same Set: If we create our own set like Alex recomend with can create an infrastructure that allow us to paint what we want and for HTML we can learn on how Semantic does to get minimal and natural output, but that will be our own implementation, not Semantic. I have still some days to dedicate to the website, but as finish that and we put website live, I expect to go with this. But I need to know if we can join forces to make this happen, or if is only me, so I think I should go a more simple path. 2017-11-14 17:42 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>: > Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation goals > related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an > implementation goal was to create a component set where you could "draw" > just about any visuals for the components. > > These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap) and > now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to have > component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes, but I > thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but make > sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create > their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS borders and > background images. > > Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a visual > model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so that > in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent > look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open Source > projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of every > component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a new > component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left, etc. > > My 2 cents, > -Alex > > On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > > >For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and > >itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce list > >and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick > >in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not require a > >dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I think > >we should consider having both. > > > >‹peter > > > >On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that > >>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default > >>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality > >>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge. > >>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes) > >>easier by looking at the existing examples. > >> > >> > >> > >>________________________________ > >>From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com <carlos.rov...@gmail.com> on behalf of > >>Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > >>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM > >>To: dev@royale.apache.org > >>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort > >> > >>Hi, > >> > >>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get > >>with our UI set + Look and feel effort. > >> > >>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the > >>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be > >>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation. > >> > >>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and > >>feels > >>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...) > >> > >>The main concepts behind are great as well: > >> > >>* Use concise and natural HTML > >>* Intuitive JS > >> > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic > >>- > >>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73 > f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344 > >>3 > >>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata= > edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi > >>r > >>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0 > >> > >>It has already integrations with React, Angular,... > >> > >>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts > >>and > >>this could be integrated. > >> > >>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time > >>this > >>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look > >>and feels, all controls needed... > >> > >>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to > >>create out own. > >> > >>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs > >>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will > >>need > >>to be develop by us > >> > >>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create > >>what we need or take parts from here right? > >> > >>Thoughts? > >> > >> > >>-- > >>Carlos Rovira > >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me% > >>2 > >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73 > f19d%7Cfa7b1b > >>5 > >>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148& > sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX > >>A > >>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0 > > > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
