first results: everything seems to work as expected
will continue testing

On Wed, 25 Mar 2020 at 01:12, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> ok, let's give it a try!
>
> All hidden elements (hidden form fields or placeholders) are hidden via
> "hidden" attribute now.
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
>
> On 24.03.20 08:15, Emond Papegaaij wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > If you want to go ahead and remove the core CSS, please make sure all
> > components keep working. For example, in wicket extensions I had to
> > use the 'wicket--hidden' class in progressbar.js. Just do a grep on
> > 'wicket--hidden' and double-check those components in the examples.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Emond
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 6:29 AM Maxim Solodovnik <solomax...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> Let's try to remove this CSS and check :)
> >> I'm currently using latest wicket SNAPSHOT at master so most probably
> >> will provide some feedback :)
> >>
> >> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 at 19:51, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>> In this case I am fine to go with 'hidden'.
> >>> We can introduce wicket-core.css later if needed.
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:44 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>
> >>>> these stylings?
> >>>>
> >>>>       width: 0px;
> >>>>       height: 0px;
> >>>>       position: absolute;
> >>>>       left: -100px;
> >>>>       top: -100px;
> >>>>       overflow: hidden;
> >>>>
> >>>> They are a 10-year old workaround
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/b00f8ed1647f7a69a38aba562efa98bb8eb84d97
> >>>>
> >>>> ... for a problem that no longer exists:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8318428/submit-form-fields-inside-displaynone-element
> >>>>
> >>>> A simple "display:none"/"hidden" is sufficient.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sven
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 20.03.20 10:29, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Sven,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What about wicket--hidden-fields ?
> >>>>> We still need wicket-core.css for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Martin
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 11:25 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've built an example to better demonstrate my argument:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> a) "hidden" tags work fine out-of-the-box :)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>        https://jsfiddle.net/p8s7Lrk2/1/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> b) changing display of tags changes "hidden" tags too :(
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>        https://jsfiddle.net/p8s7Lrk2/2/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> c) and a simple fix for "hidden" tags - no !important required ...
> 8)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>        https://jsfiddle.net/p8s7Lrk2/3/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In my opinion there's no need to invent "wicket--hidden" when
> "hidden"
> >>>>>> works already as expected/needed (a).
> >>>>>> And furthermore Wicket does not need to provide a fix (c) for
> something
> >>>>>> the web designer screwed up (b) in the first place.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Have fun
> >>>>>> Sven
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 17.03.20 13:01, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> >>>>>>> Hello Sven,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I always thought:having override like this will require re-testing
> all
> >>>>>>> 3rd-party components manually
> >>>>>>> (I don't have that much time)
> >>>>>>> So I'm using library as-is and override as minimum as possible :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2020 at 18:56, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi Maxim,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> what is difficult about that?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Actually it is recommended to have it in your normalize.css
> (formerly
> >>>>>>>> reset.css).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here one without !important:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> https://github.com/necolas/normalize.css/blob/master/normalize.css
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sven
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 13.03.20 15:21, Maxim Solodovnik wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Additional note:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Bootstrap has following CSS
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> [hidden] {
> >>>>>>>>>       display: none !important;
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> which makes life much more diffiicult ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 at 21:17, Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigo...@apache.org>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> WBR
> >> Maxim aka solomax
>


-- 
WBR
Maxim aka solomax

Reply via email to