Harbs is proposing that, like border-box, we apply position:relative to all
elements in the DOM. My understanding is that you can do that via:
.Application * {
position: relative;
}
If it has zero impact on Jewel's use of flexbox then I think it is safe to use.
I just want to make sure folks won't be wanting to turn that off at some point.
Another area of concern is in encapsulating existing DOM patterns. When folks
want to make existing JS frameworks work in Royale, they may want to copy code
from those JS frameworks and wrap them in Royale classes. But if the code they
borrow did not assume that all elements had position:relative, the copied code
may not work correctly. That's why the application of PAYG principles, IMO, is
to only apply it to the parent containers that need it, even though that runs a
bit more code to do that. Setting position:relative "just-in-case" someone
needs to use x,y is not PAYG, IMO.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 6/6/18, 9:06 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote:
Hi Alex
2018-06-06 17:23 GMT+02:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> This sounds scary to me because it affects the entire DOM, and not very
> PAYG. Maybe Carlos should try it on his Jewel layouts and see if anything
> breaks.
>
What you refer exactly to try? let me know to do it .
--
Carlos Rovira
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C29273bf16fa1457dc71a08d5cbc777a3%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636638979924029830&sdata=77fNpWL%2FJwcjHJCRD4a%2BZARrUeHPTLSnLABXoGcS1I8%3D&reserved=0
