HI Alex, 2018-03-15 19:34 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <[email protected]>:
> > If you are saying you will have JewelTheme.swc that contains SVG and > assets in one folder and then other folders with only CSS for setting > colors that's fine. If you need SVG in in the Blue theme and have to turn > it into a SWC as well, that is also fine. The main point was to avoid > having blue.css and red.css in the one JewelTheme.swc. > Right, that's the point now have a common theme (JewelTheme) and a second derived theme for colors and other possible changes What is still to decide is if we should have blue, red, orange, green,.. or maybe blue-red, blue-orange,...and then red-blue, red-orange,... and more for gradients. Maybe this is the final part on "definitions" or "foundations" to decide. > IMO, if we want to support Bootstrap, we should do it by encapsulation > their HTML structures, not by trying to emulate their visuals. Then other > Bootstrap themes will "just work". Again, Royale is primarily in the > business of encapsulating common patterns. If every Bootstrap user must > fashion a Button out of a <div> and <label> and <input> and give those > tags certain attributes so the Bootstrap CSS will take effect, then a > Bootstrap.swc for Royale would contain view beads that generate those tags > with those attributes. Another way of thinking about it is to take two > different Bootstrap websites, look at the HTML DOM, find the common > patterns, and those patterns are what the view bead generates. I thought > MDL worked the same way. We are creating our own component set at first > just to make debugging simple, but also to make it possible to write > really simple HTML that isn't completely styleable and to avoid licensing > issues, but now you are creating view beads that set up a particular HTML > so you can style it with your CSS. If you love Bootstrap and want to use > Bootstrap to get our default Royale look, that's fine with me, as long as > you can stay away from licensing issues. > > well, I think that's brilliant! :), I didn't think on this from that perspective. So instead of emulate, we can use it's own css by using view beads. I think I'll give this a try to make a project to see how this will work. If this is ok, we'll have the main scenario delineated and can simply start the work :) MDL library had the problem that is was limited to it's own namespace I created "mdl:Button" or "mdl:TextField", and the structure in html was what MDL expected now we have our own royale way through "jewel", and we can have different themes that will encapsulate their own view beads, this was a point of discussion with @Piotr this morning in an issue thread and maybe this is a great way to exemplarize what we can do with views in themes instead in the library btw, I never used a ViewBead, we have already docs on how to use it? or maybe you can point me to a class using a view bead. Finaly, I always think we must have our own style and that's where more work will be pushed But I think is important to set the complete scenario so if I can end a Bootstrap effort, other can. Maybe I could go per component, setting up different themes for Jewel, Bootstrap, Semantic and MDL, and then go to the next control, and so on... but main should be ours! :) Thanks -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
