Thanks everyone!

On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 7:58:02 AM UTC+2, Don Olmstead wrote:
>
> For the Polymer.dart library I work on I provide the bare minimum of 
> styling required and instead style everything externally. Since I'm using 
> Dart the theme is a different package that someone can download. If someone 
> else wanted to make a theme they would just need to do something similar 
> and create a package with it.
>
> https://github.com/donny-dont/Pixelate-Flat
>
> Not sure if this is the best way, and I'm certainly open to feedback if 
> there's anything I'm doing wrong, but it might give you some ideas.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Rob Dodson <[email protected]<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>> I really like OOCSS and SMACSS so this is how I frame things in my head:
>>
>> 1. The parent can position the child inside itself. Whether that is 
>> absolute/relative positioning or adding margin to the child to get it to 
>> layout correctly.
>> 2. The child should provide known hooks that the parent can manipulate. I 
>> think of these as kind of like the public properties and methods of a 
>> child. Since it's ok to use IDs with custom elements, perhaps we use those 
>> to indicate specific hooks and classes for groups. If you're piercing the 
>> shadow dom and styling something that has neither an id nor a class it 
>> should probably feel dirty.
>> 3. Theming is a cool idea, we should explore this more. I don't think it 
>> actually solves the problem, but it might save you some work. For example, 
>> remember when Bootstrap had gradients on all of its buttons? Being able to 
>> set bootstrap to the "flat" theme doesn't answer the question of "how do I 
>> align this thing in my header" but it does save you from having to strip 
>> out those gradients.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Pascal Precht 
>> <[email protected]<javascript:>
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> I have a question regarding styling of web components. I know that it's 
>>> probably too early to talk about best practices, but we probably don't have 
>>> to talk about best practices at all, rather about some good advices with 
>>> arguments behind it.
>>>
>>> Imagine the following scenario:
>>>
>>> Let's say we have a web component, that abstracts a very nice header 
>>> element for your mobile UI away. We apply according styles and everything 
>>> works fine.
>>> Now we have another component, which is a button component. The button 
>>> component get's its styling too, but we also want to be able to use the 
>>> button
>>> component within the header component. Actually all we wanna do is 
>>> aligning the button in the header component.
>>>
>>> With Shadow DOM CSS we're able to style down to "n" shadow doms from an 
>>> outer document. On the other hand, we're able to define host context 
>>> specific styles.
>>> Now what does that mean? In case of our scenario, we have two options:
>>>
>>> 1. We could decide to style the alignment for our button, than **can** 
>>> be used in our header, through Shadow DOM CSS. Kinda like the way we always 
>>> do, but with shadow dom css.
>>> 2. We could define context specific styles to the button component. So 
>>> it actually "knows" about a possible header context where its living in.
>>>
>>> My question is, what is here the better way to go? The first option 
>>> feels more appropriate since we do it in that way today. We define a CSS 
>>> module and another one and a parent
>>> module declares how a child module behaves within that parent module. 
>>> But since we're using new technologies here that give us new possibilities, 
>>> I wonder if it's over a long term
>>> more convenient to define context specific rules for a component and let 
>>> it know about it's possible contexts.
>>>
>>> Any thoughts on that?
>>>
>>>  Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692
>>> --- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Polymer" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/2147f5a3-2409-45cb-8993-1e4096b8837b%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/2147f5a3-2409-45cb-8993-1e4096b8837b%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>
>>  Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692
>> --- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Polymer" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAJj5OwC_WW6PVf2zEgGhZ%3DqYLZBJm%2BS1R7bHZxA8a5R4TwCJKw%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/CAJj5OwC_WW6PVf2zEgGhZ%3DqYLZBJm%2BS1R7bHZxA8a5R4TwCJKw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>

Follow Polymer on Google+: plus.google.com/107187849809354688692
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Polymer" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/polymer-dev/96232e2f-d979-425f-965e-9f9672fbb611%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to