On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:13 PM Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>
wrote:
> Hi Sven,
>
> <html>
>
> <head>
> <style>
> /* rule from the application that should be used when the
> element is visible */
> div {
> display: flex;
> margin-bottom: 200px;
> }
>
> /* Rule coming from wicket-core.css */
> .wicket--hidden {
> display: none;
> }
>
> </style>
> </head>
>
> <body>
> <p>
> Element when visible: <br/>
> A1 <div id="blah1.1" >B1</div> C1 <span>D1</span>
> <br/>
> </p>
> <p>
> Element when hidden (there is no B1 because Wicket renders
> just the tag, without any children): <br/>
> A2 <div id="blah1.2" hidden></div> C2 <span>D2</span>
> <br/>
> <small><strong>C2 & D2</strong> are still 200px down
> because 'hidden' is not like 'display: none'!
> The application developer will have to do something more for
> the placeholder case to hide it.</small>
> </p>
>
> <p>
> Element with wicket--hidden class<br/>
> A3 <div id="blah3" class="wicket--hidden">B3</div> C3
> <span>D3</span>
> <br/>
> <small><strong>C3 & D3</strong> are not 200px down because
> of 'display: none'!
> The application developer has nothing to do!</small>
> </p>
> </body>
>
> </html>
>
> It shows two things:
>
> 1) since Wicket placeholder tags do not have children elements [1] there
> is not really a need to use 'hidden' or 'display: none'
>
As I explained below we do need to use display: none.
I've forgot to update this line.
>
> 2) if we really want to hide the element without leaving extra work for
> web designers then we have to use display: none
>
>
> 1.
> https://github.com/apache/wicket/blob/10d10a92dda2e5834508f52d7807fe361f20fbea/wicket-core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/Component.java#L2370
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 4:35 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've looked at all responses and most arguments in favor of a "core.css"
>> boil down to:
>>
>> > `hidden` attribute doesn't work (even `display: flex` breaks it)
>>
>> > Using the hidden attribute puts the responsibility with the developer
>> > where this should be on the framework. The hidden attribute just
>> doesn't work.
>>
>> > When something as simple as using flex or display:block on a div breaks
>> > the hidden attribute [1] we should not depend on it working.
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't share that assessment: 'hidden' works just fine!
>> Every browser supports it and it has a strong semantic meaning we can
>> utilize.
>>
>> If you (or your web designer) decides to style hidden elements as
>> floating, static, flex, pink or with marquee ... feel free to do so.
>>
>
> No. The web designer styles the element when it is supposed to be visible.
> But then when some condition is met Wicket may render it as a placeholder
> for Ajax requests and then this element will be rendered.
> It does not have text content but the CSS rules will be still applied and
> the web designer will have to add more rules for the cases when 'hidden' is
> there.
> Most probably something like:
> div[hidden] {
> display:none;
> }
>
>
>> Wicket doesn't need to ship a CSS file to fix anything here.
>> Note that the way we are hiding components in Wicket never exposes any
>> sensible information anyways. This topic is just about layout and
>> styling and that is completely in the responsibility of your developer
>> ... and works out-of-the-box if you don't break it!
>>
>
> What about the cases when the children need to be invisible ?
> .wicket--hidden-fields
>
>
>>
>> >Wicket ... has been dependent on its own styles, spread out through
>> our code in odd ways
>> > I consider not having a wicket stylesheet file a bug, not a feature
>>
>> I couldn't disagree more. These "odd ways" is one of many cool features
>> of Wicket named "components". BTW we Wicket devs have never been very
>> successful in crafting CSS anyways, we shouldn't start with this now :P.
>>
>
> We don't really start.
> We do not mandate styling. We just hide whatever is supposed to be hidden.
> Nothing more.
>
> As agreed (?!) earlier .wicket--color-red should be just a marker CSS
> class. The content should be provided by the application. Just like
> FeedbackPanel's CSS classes. I will remove it now!
>
>
>>
>> I'll start a vote soon.
>>
>> Sidenote : This doesn't mean I'm against the CSP feature in general!
>> After some iterations we arrived at a very cool solution (with some
>> minor detail questions remaining).
>>
>> Have fun
>> Sven
>>
>> On 27.02.20 22:18, Emond Papegaaij wrote:
>> > Hi Andrew,
>> >
>> > I thought of this solution as well and it will work. The major
>> > advantage is that the styling is only added when it is actually used.
>> > But it requires significantly more work to build and is a lot more
>> > complex than the current solution. For this, we need some place to
>> > accumulate element styling, like we do for JS event handlers. This
>> > then needs to be rendered in the response.
>> >
>> > The most complex part is ajax updates. These might change some of the
>> > styling. Simply replacing the style element will not work, because in
>> > an ajax request only the added components are rendered. Rendering a
>> > style element per component will work, but is far from ideal. This is
>> > why I went for the easy solution.
>> >
>> > Emond
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:08 PM Andrew Kondratev <and...@kondratev.pro>
>> wrote:
>> >> Just as a brainstorm. Not sure if it's a good idea.
>> >>
>> >> Wicket potentially can add nounced style to the document with hidden
>> >> elements hidden by id.
>> >>
>> >> Imagine generated HTML has components like these
>> >> <div class="wupb-container">
>> >> <div class="wupb-progressBar" id="ida"><div
>> >> class="wupb-border"><div class="wupb-background"><div
>> >> class="wupb-foreground"></div></div></div></div>
>> >> <div class="wupb-uploadStatus" id="id9"></div>
>> >> </div>
>> >>
>> >> #ida and #id9 must be hidden, so in the page header we add something
>> like
>> >> this
>> >>
>> >> <style nonce="abracadabra">
>> >> #ida, #id9 {display: none;}
>> >> </style>
>> >>
>> >> Even if the wupb-progressBar has display: flex, the #ida will win.
>> Will
>> >> win even over #id8 .wupb-progressBar {display: fles}
>> >>
>> >> !important can potentially be added.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> чт, 27 февр. 2020 г. в 23:56, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>> reier...@gmail.com
>> >>> :
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 12:33 PM Andrea Del Bene <
>> an.delb...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 10:26 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>> >>>> reier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Right now I have no enough knowledge to vote in this feature. One
>> >>> thing I
>> >>>>> didn't like, and I already mentioned it before, is some of us were
>> >>>> waiting
>> >>>>> for 9.x to be released some time ago (at least a few months ago I
>> was
>> >>>>> preparing some branch of our application and ported it to 9.x, after
>> >>>> asking
>> >>>>> about release plans) and all of the sudden this feature is
>> introduced
>> >>> and
>> >>>>> all sub-frameworks depending on Wicket will have to be adapted.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In which way sub-frameworks should be affected? I mean, as far as I
>> >>>> understand it, if we disable CSP blocking configuration everything
>> should
>> >>>> work "the old way", and that's why I would prefer to keep CSP
>> disabled by
>> >>>> default.
>> >>>>
>> >>> Well if something is supported at core level then if associated
>> projects
>> >>> want to comply with this new feature, which might be ideal, then
>> they will
>> >>> have to be adapted (or not?). I'm not talking about not releasing the
>> new
>> >>> feature. I'm talking about not releasing as part of 9.x, as it was
>> said to
>> >>> be almost ready for release a few months ago, and deffer it to 10.x
>> (and
>> >>> try to release it soon).
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>> >>>
>>
>
