Hi Harbs, the frameworks I'm watching are MDL, Semantic and Bootstrap (all top frameworks) to see what they do in different cases and guide me to find the best way to implement the HTML Jewel should output in royale in Royale. All of this frameworks are only HTML/JS/CSS (not builds from other code), but I think that's not the point, since in the end both build front end interfaces with controls and layouts
So are you telling me that our output is better than theirs? That our way of put somethings in the own html markup is better than theirs? I don't think so, since they do the same but with better results: better optimized and less weight html code. In the other hand, you are telling me to write a bead to override or correct something the framework is hardcoding? I suppose you are referring to a bead that removes all styles hardcoded, so that doesn't strikes out my CSS styles... I think that's not the way to solve this. If I were making an App maybe that's could be the solution as a workaround, but we are framework developers, not users. I think that solution was good to start with, but now it demands to refactor to something better. Harbs, are we trying to make the best framework out there? I think this concrete point will make people reject us when they started to see the html we product all bloated with styles, when that's not necessary and can be on a "first level" CSS that be part of the lib code (not a theme) and be included always. I think that's the right solution and we'll get the same we have now but in the right insertion point. Thanks 2018-03-11 23:19 GMT+01:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > If you are trying to override the values, you probably need different > beads. > > There’s no other well known framework which builds HTML from code. At best > they stick pseudo-code inside HTML. That’s a huge difference between Royale > and anything else. > > > On Mar 12, 2018, at 12:17 AM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Hi Harbs, > > > > but you are losing one important point here: When I try to override the > > value with CSS I can't since style is always take before my css. > > So my styles in my theme are not valid due to the styles in the > framework. > > And more over, did you see only one example out there in any well-known > ui > > framework that puts styles in the components hard-coded? > > > > > > 2018-03-11 22:43 GMT+01:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > > > >> Display:block is almost always the right choice. It’s set in the Layout > >> bead. > >> > >> I don’t agree on “clean” HTML. The only reason to use css classes is to > >> enable restyling (i.e. skinning) of an ap with different CSS sets. > >> Otherwise, inline CSS is probably more efficient than css files. > >> > >>> On Mar 11, 2018, at 7:18 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> coming back to this topic. I think is important, and that it deserves > its > >>> own thread like I said in other one covering this and other topics. > >>> > >>> Current problem: In jewel button display is set to "inline-block", but > >>> since there's a default style, this make this assignment unused > (appears > >>> strike out in browsers, since style="display:block" takes precedence. > >> This > >>> happens in all through any royale app what I think is something bad. I > >>> think this is serious right? > >>> > >>> Another side effect is that we should no create any "style" in html > tags > >>> due to: > >>> > >>> * bloated code (anyone looking at the html code we produce will see > this > >>> problem and will think in this as a "bad point" for us) > >>> * as I notice, all styles in that tags takes precedence. And the last > >> word > >>> should be in devs hands, not in royale framework devs hands. > >>> * if you see demos from other ui frameworks like material, semantic, > >> etc.. > >>> you'll never site ugly style attributes in any tag through all the > demo, > >>> and they do what we do, so we can't say, "we must use style tags since > >>> there's no other way to do that". I think that's not true. This should > be > >>> what "Core" or "Basic" CSS should do. "Basic" should not say nothing > >> about > >>> font sizes, colors, backgrounds, etc.. but should do things like assign > >>> display, other needs more near to the framework code. > >>> > >>> I propose to start looking to display:block to see how to remove, and > >> then > >>> progress to other styles like white-space: nowrap, margins, > paddings...so > >>> we can end seeing no "style" attribute set by our framwork. > >>> > >>> So centering on display:block only: I'm trying to find where is the > line > >>> where the framework assigns "display: block" to all components to find > >>> alternatives. > >>> I think it should be in Basic, but after comment all lines where I see > >> this > >>> kind of assignament it still appears. Could someone point me to the > line > >>> where this happen? > >>> my thinking on this particular assignment is that it could remove from > >> all > >>> components easily. > >>> > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rovira > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
