OK. Great! It looks like we’re agreeing on these points too. (It seems like I was right that we agree on most points) :-)
To add a bit of clarity: We are using (some) MDL in our app, and we had requirements to modify the default MDL styling. I found this very difficult to do and I ended up messing with the compiled css that we’re using (yuck!) ;-) So, yes, I have experience modifying the CSS defaults and I think that it would be easier to be able to do that using class names. As far as Frankenstein goes: Yeah. It’s a bit messy and at some point we’re probably going to just drop the use of MDL altogether, but it’s working OK for now. > On May 15, 2018, at 1:38 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Point #1 seems to have a couple of considerations: >> a) Can MDL components have visual CSS applied to them? >> > > In MDL you "import" the real CSS and JS. Take into account we are > "wrapping" a real library. But you still can add new css, but I must say I > didn't experiment with that, since the motivation to bring MDL was to have > a set that looks good out-of-the-box. > > >> b) Assuming it can’t, should that dictate how other component sets work? >> > > No. MDL has the problem that it comes from other source, so the problem is > that it has some components (Badge, Card,..), and does not have others > (Panel, Accordion,..). So wrapping this ui sets, is good to make Royale > more powerful, but I think it should not be our real target, as I said many > times. For example, with Jewel we can make many different themes, and make > our applications change theme and change the look completely. With MDL your > tied to how MDL looks (or MDL themes) > > >> >> I *think* the answer to a is “sort of”. The container element of MDL can >> certainly have CSS. If an MDL Button has a “proper” typename, CSS can be >> applied. How effective it will be depends on the specific style and whether >> it’s overridden by the MDL CSS. More complex components which have nested >> elements make that answer more convoluted. >> > > I don't think I follow you here. But If you are saying to make MDL have > generic CSS styles, I think that will make a "Frankenstein" ;). For > external sets, I think is better left as is, and only think of use it as it > was designed. What I think we could do at some time, but would require lots > of time, is to implement our own MDL Jewel theme, that could match the MDL > style, but I think that have visible differences and will not match MDL > 100%. Or we can make a theme overriding Views and applying real MDL css and > js, but we'll have more components than the ones supported by MDL.
