We could always have a bead which sets:
.foo *{
position: static;
}
To reset the defaults of all elements below “foo” to static.
Of course to change it to something else, you’d need:
.foo .baz{
position: absolute;
}
I’m not sure how well this would work with the Jewel layout beads. I’m not sure
what the specificity is on that.
Harbs
> On Jun 11, 2018, at 10:11 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> The emulation Application is based on Container and thus creates a Div. It
> may not stay that way, but we did it so that the SystemManager can parent the
> app like it does in Flex.
>
> Feel free to commit the bead. It won't hurt anything and some folks will be
> able to use it. I'm still wondering what the right answer is going to be for
> the emulation component sets. Or what to do if someone does have some part
> of the DOM that they do not want style.position set. There is no CSS way to
> specify "set style on all parents", AFAIK, which is would help reduce
> side-effects.
>
> Later,
> -Alex
>
> On 6/8/18, 9:02 AM, "Harbs" <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Interesting idea, but I thought there was concern about the global selector
>> affecting HTML around the app?
>
> Currently, we don’t have an Application class that attaches to regular
> divs It always controls the body element. Since we control the whole page,
> it’s not a problem. If we do get to the point where a Royale app can be
> injected into a random div, then setting a global selector might be a problem
> if there’s other HTML which relies on static. We can have heavier-duty beads
> to deal with setting relative positioning in those cases.
>
> Harbs
>
