The current solution of allowing you to inject as the first child of <head> works just fine, at the loss of user defined stylesheets needing to use !important, but it is also extremely simple to implement, and the low hanging fruit. Iimposing that StyleInjector would have to use addRule()/insertRule() would result in a performance hit for large injections, while simultaneously reducing the coding efficiency of ImmutableResourceBundle/ClientBundle, since it would have to break up the cssText into an array of strings. I don't think the GWT team wants to make large sweeping changes to StyleInjector/ClientBundle at this point. I'm also skeptical that it would yield much practical benefit to most developers. Can you give a practical example of how this would even be used and how the end user (not generally aware of CSS and cascade rules) would even decide what to do?
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:52 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected] > wrote: > That's correct because they cascade. The benefit of specifying which > stylesheet to inject into is that the gwt stylesheet can contain defaults > which are in turn overridden at will in user defined stylesheets. > > Currently it's a free for all with ordering being undpecified which makes > it messy to start overriding some rules. > > > > On 04/04/2009,d at 2:33 PM, Ray Cromwell <[email protected]> wrote: > > > You can get the CssRule/CSSStyleDeclaration as text via the cssText > property, but AFAIK, there is no property on document.styleSheets[n] that > allows setting the whole stylesheet at once using text. If there is, it's > certainly not part of the W3C DOM CSS OM. > -Ray > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Miroslav Pokorny <<[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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]> >> [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]><[email protected]> >> [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]><[email protected]> >>> [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]><[email protected]><[email protected]> >>> [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]><[email protected]><[email protected]> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> <http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004><http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004><http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004> >>>>> 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><http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004#newcode35><http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803/diff/4001/4004#newcode35> >>>>> 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://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803><http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803> >>>>> http://gwt-code-reviews.appspot.com/15803 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
