One does not have to add the rules one by one. If I recall it is possible to get the entire content of a stylesheet using the "css" property append your new rules and update that property. I'm pretty sure you can do basically the same thing in all browsers.
Ti On 04/04/2009, at 10:56 AM, Ray Cromwell <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems to me that calling addRule/insertRule a hundred times would > be pretty slow (just look how many rules are in the GWT Theme CSS), > not to mention there are cross-browser issues to deal with, when a > simple, well-tested, mechanism exists already. Sometimes doing the > 'proper' thing is not an improvement (e.g. not using tables for > layout because it's "wrong") > > -Ray > > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected] > > wrote: > This is probably the wrong time to ask -but updating styles via the > addition of style tags seems very limiting. > > If I recall IE (cant recall which vetsion was probably 7) chokes > when a page has more than thirty odd style elements. > > Why not add new rules using StyleSheet.addRule/insertRule or > appending the new CSS to a particular stylesheet's CSS ? Using style > elements to "append" to a stylesheet seems a hack when proper > mechanisms exist. > > If the StyleInjector bundle included a mechanism to say which > stylesheet to modify. > > On 04/04/2009, at 8:49 AM, Ray Cromwell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I believe so. I don't see any harm. Personally, I think if you >> don't have a <head>, your page is broken, since you don't even get >> a <title>, but it would be nice to either throw an informative >> exception, or inject a head in this circumstance. >> >> -Ray >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:46 PM, Ray Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> Can we add safely add head if we don't find it? >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004 >> File user/src/com/google/gwt/dom/client/StyleInjector.java (right): >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004#newcode35 >> Line 35: "head").getItem(0)); >> I mentioned this in another review, but this common idiom can fail if >> the user doesn't have a <head> element, which is certainly legal. >> Some >> browsers automatically insert a <head> if it's missing, but some >> don't. >> I guess we could simply declare we don't support leaving out head. >> >> Might be good to assert head != null >> >> >> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803 >> >> >> >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
