Yes, I would love it if there was a way to have a simpler HTML structure.
I saw this article  implied you could hide the checkbox.
I don't know for sure, but my sense is that the HTML structure used by
bootstrap and mdl couldn't take advantage of browsers supporting
display:none to hide the checkbox. If you have time, it would be
interesting to see if you can hide the checkbox and set a background-image
to some SVG. IMO, it would be ok if truly allowing any visuals required
CSS3 support in the browser. You could have another set of views that use
the MDL-like HTML Trees.
IMO, if you can draw every pixel of the various HTML Input controls by
hiding the default look and drawing background-images, and mouse hit
detection still works, you will have a pattern that is closest to that of
Spark in Flex. Even closer would be to have a Div with an SVGElement in
front or in back of a control with alpha=0, but that seems heavy to me.
It occurred to me how this effort may be analogous to Feathers and
Starling. Flash has SimpleButton. You give it 3 views (up, down, hover)
and you are done. But if that isn't enough control (can't easily do
disabled view) then you use a Sprite and write your own mouse code. And
then you get for a little more code, things like focus and accessibility.
Then if that's not good enough, you use the Stage3D and start writing
controls that work there, but then you have to draw everything and write
more code for mouse handling and focus and accessibility. I think you can
find a way in Royale to draw everything, but it might turn out to be a lot
of work in the same way. The less built-in behavior you use, the more
work it will be.
On 2/12/18, 2:10 PM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
>very good questions here. Sincerely I'd like to have responses but this
>path is completely new for me and need to experiment with it.
>If someone has examples or urls where this is covered, please share here,
>since I'm starting right now to see what can be done.
>As you see, yesterday I started solving the three project structure and
>one component in place. That component has a structure similar as you see
>to what people is doing out there with bootstrap, mdl, and others. Maybe
>that's the best right now, but I'd like to know if something can be done
>The perfect world would be to have the simplest html structure that could
>be stylized with basic CSS and/or SVG so you can have almost an infinite
>of variations and many people could create its own themes based in a
>One thing I want to explore is CSS structure, For example, instead of one
>CSS to rule them all, I want to have one CSS per component, so you can
>easily go to
>"TextField.css" and change the look and feel of that concrete component.
>The in the pom.xml, you'll have all .css added so the final css file will
>be the union of all
>I think we have to create at least two themes to show case the theme
>feature, and then we should see if we support things like runtime theme
>loading to change
>all the app style with a single click of a button and things like that.
>I'll be searching for internet the best way to customize controls and try
>SVG in combination of CSS. As I said, any advice on how to proceed is
>welcome, just please
>post some example or url in order to understand as much as possible.
>2018-02-12 10:03 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>> Thanks for getting started on this. Good to know that Theme is working
>> for you. I think we've used Theme in a few other places already like
>> in case you want to see it working somewhere else.
>> AIUI, Vivid is just one look-and-feel you and others will provide based
>> a new "sub-DOM" within the UI components like TextInput. Someone will
>> provide a Wireframe, others will come up with completely different
>> So it may be that you will create some other SWC called
>> and that's where the newly structured components will go, and Vivid and
>> VividBlue will be more or less just a set of styles and assets to plug
>> into those sub-DOMs.
>> It is fine if this work reduces usage of Express. I don't believe
>> everyone uses Bootstrap or MDL for every web page. I believe there are
>> people who don't need control over every pixel and are happy using the
>> browser Checkbox as-is. They will continue to use Express and Basic.
>> But also, I hope that this styling work ends up being a SWC full of new
>> Views and no other beads. And the components are empty subclasses of
>> Basic or Express component. That would be ideal. It would mean that
>> other kinds of beads in Basic can be re-used in these highly-styled
>> components and that we've put the right boundary around what a View is.
>> Speak up if it doesn't look like that will be possible.
>> Finally, I'm wondering how this work, which I think has the goal of
>> providing a new default look for Royale, relates to the goal of a "truly
>> skinnable" component set, where just about every pixel would be
>> in SVG. It feels like the sub-DOM approach is similar to the Bootstrap
>> and MDL technique of allowing customizations that can be described in
>> operating on the given sub-DOM, which is great. But is the only way to
>> truly allow any look to allow SVG to describe every pixel or can it be
>> done with these sub-DOMs?
>> PS: Done for tonight. Will pick this up in my morning.
>> On 2/11/18, 9:13 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>> <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >just let you know that I have the basic structure of Vivid new UI set,
>> >first Vivid theme test project and a example for this working.
>> >Right now nothing relevant as a final results, but Alex advice about
>> >"theme" compiler option is working for me. The only control in this
>> >projects using all of this is "TextField" vivid control, but now I
>> >implement some concrete look and feel.
>> >As well, I finaly see what Harbs said about make a new UI set due to
>> >structure change. I need to change basic default html structure.
>> >I think this last is important, and maybe Express could end with no use
>> >to the lack of more HTML structure in each component.
>> >Without that is very complicated stylize controls, and without
>> >the UI set is almost useless. If the purpose of Basic and Express is
>> >the foundation of a third UI set, then that's ok. Just want to notice
>> >About my intentions with all of this: First let you know that I'll be
>> >focusing in make JSOnly controls, and will not spend time with SWF for
>> >Don't know if this is important for someone right now.
>> >Finally, "RoyaleThemes" example project can be removed since now is
>> >useless. I'm working in a new branch "feature/themes". If anyone wants
>> >join the effort let me know! (for example make new controls, implements
>> >Carlos Rovira