Remind me why the button CSS is compiled as Button{} rather than .Button{}?

> On Dec 16, 2019, at 1:55 AM, Alex Harui <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The CSS referenced appears to be in the Basic theme, not the Basic SWC.  Did 
> you try using a different theme?
> 
> -Alex
> 
> On 12/15/19, 1:09 PM, "Carlos Rovira" <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>    Well, others are in the same problem using excluded css hack. You're ok
>    since you're using specifically the UI Set that is in the library that all
>    other UI sets must use ;)
> 
>    Anyway, I thought all the fixes in the compiler discussed was already in
>    place.
> 
>    El dom., 15 dic. 2019 a las 19:36, Harbs (<[email protected]>) 
> escribió:
> 
>> I think we spoke about fixing this in the compiler. Moving Basic to a
>> separate library would not solve this case because I’m actually using Basic.
>> 
>>> On Dec 15, 2019, at 8:15 PM, Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Harbs,
>>> 
>>> I think we should move Basic components along with its CSS to its own
>>> library. The same as we need to separate MXRoyale/SparkRoyale from
>>> HTTPSerice, RemoteObject or Validator (to say something) and other "non
>>> visual classes". I started the latter effort some months ago as we
>>> discussed in list, but I must left since I runned out of time to that
>>> at the moment, and was no easy task to do, but hope to separate in libs
>> one
>>> day.
>>> 
>>> Aboutt Basic: Actualy Basic lib should have just the code that is needed
>>> for the rest of UI Sets, but not an UI Set that some people will never
>> use.
>>> I mean mainly TLCs and its CSS defs.
>>> 
>>> Since we have Jewel UI Set, MDL UI Set, Express UI Set, I think Basic
>>> should be the name of the library and have another name for the
>>> common/foundation code for the rest of UI Sets. My proposal is to call
>> it :
>>> Foundation.swc or Common.swc
>>> 
>>> In the meantime you can use the "exclude css hack". But that shouldn't be
>>> the final goal (as I said is just a hack), just a way to jump over the
>>> problem for now. I had this on an app that uses MXRoyale just for
>>> RemoteObject communication and some validators and other utility classes.
>>> Without that the styles are messed between Jewel and MXRoyale.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Carlos
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> El dom., 15 dic. 2019 a las 12:47, Harbs (<[email protected]>)
>> escribió:
>>> 
>>>> We just ran into the problem of components stepping on each other again.
>>>> 
>>>> We have both a Basic Button and a Button from another component set in
>> our
>>>> app. Basic css causes the following css to be written:
>>>> 
>>>> Button {
>>>>       background-color: #f8f8f8;
>>>>       border-radius: 2px;
>>>>       border: 1px solid #808080;
>>>>       margin: 0px;
>>>>       padding: 4px;
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Button:hover {
>>>>       background-color: #e8e8e8;
>>>>       border: 1px solid #808080;
>>>>       padding: 4px;
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Button:active {
>>>>       background-color: #d8d8d8;
>>>>       border: 1px solid #808080;
>>>>       padding: 4px;
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Considering these are selector css rather than class CSS, the css is
>>>> changing the default css for our components which are set using class
>> names.
>>>> 
>>>> We’ve discussed this problem in the past and I’m not sure what the end
>>>> plan (which was never implemented) was…
>>>> 
>>>> FWIW, we’re changing the styling in our app, and we’re probably getting
>>>> rid of basic buttons completely, but it’s going to be a process…
>>>> 
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> Harbs
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Carlos Rovira
>>> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C86e6ab4e3a09494c7c7a08d781a303f5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120409456302974&amp;sdata=zMVuCTdcerw7dSGN1B86dhwVI%2F6oTYm%2Fa2X6jwy8AfY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>>>  
>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C86e6ab4e3a09494c7c7a08d781a303f5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120409456302974&amp;sdata=zMVuCTdcerw7dSGN1B86dhwVI%2F6oTYm%2Fa2X6jwy8AfY%3D&amp;reserved=0>
>> 
>> 
> 
>    -- 
>    Carlos Rovira
>    
> https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C86e6ab4e3a09494c7c7a08d781a303f5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120409456302974&amp;sdata=zMVuCTdcerw7dSGN1B86dhwVI%2F6oTYm%2Fa2X6jwy8AfY%3D&amp;reserved=0
>  
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2Fcarlosrovira&amp;data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C86e6ab4e3a09494c7c7a08d781a303f5%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637120409456302974&amp;sdata=zMVuCTdcerw7dSGN1B86dhwVI%2F6oTYm%2Fa2X6jwy8AfY%3D&amp;reserved=0>

Reply via email to