Simon, jsr-168 defines only a handful of styles. Indeed if the portal
wants to provide a full, uncompressed, trinidad skin, there are ways of
turning off our rendering of the stylesheet. There are some additional
complexities we are trying to work out regarding this very usecase, but
one cannot take a stock JSR-168 portal and have it work without the
styling extensions being provided.
Simon Lessard wrote:
Personally, I don't see why the portal should not be able to provide
all selectors.
Aren't we just not compressing the selector names when we detect a
portal environment or did I miss something? I think that strategy
cannot provides the icons though.
On 7/26/07, *Martin Marinschek* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
Does the portlet container really provide every styleclass that is
necessary for Trinidad components to look like they normally look?
I'm just thinking that what is currently being done is not enough to
have the full skinning features available, and that going the
direction of adding the CSS dynamically would allow to do so.
regards,
Martin
On 7/26/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> Hey Martin,
>
> Does the simple-portlet skin render any better? I *THINK* that when
> running in a portal environment you always get the
simple-portlet skin
> unless your portal provides one of the necessary skin extensions
which,
> right now, it trinidad proprietary. Maybe this is just a case of us
> needing to bug-fix the portlet skin.
>
> That article is interesting, but I think that Trinidad has
attempted to
> do the same thing only in a different way. Instead of using
javascript
> to copy in the styles, we actually change the class names that get
> rendered on the client to use the portal styles where appropriate.
> Still, I'm not sure that this has been tested extensively
because before
> we started looking at 301, much of Trinidad's portal work has
been done
> with a Proof of Concept environment.
>
> Scott
>
> Martin Marinschek wrote:
> > After playing around for a while and finally finding out that
it was
> > as easy as setting:
> >
> > <skin-family>simple</skin-family>
> >
> > in the trinidad-config.xml I got skinning to run in the portlet
> > environment. In the end, I'm not very happy with what I see,
though.
> >
> > I'm attaching a screenshot - basically, not much change happens by
> > applying skinning - obviously due to the fact that the portlet
> > containers don't offer many default style-class hooks.
> > Have I been getting this wrong or does it really look like this?
> >
> > If I have been doing the right thing, wouldn't it be nice to
have a
> > way of adding the stylesheet with javascript dynamically in
the body?
> >
> > Something like this:
> >
> >
http://cse-mjmcl.cse.bris.ac.uk/blog/2005/08/18/1124396539593.html
> >
> > might be in order to have full skinning available, and still be
> > standards compliant.
> >
> > I'd implement this in a component, if nobody has better ideas...
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
--
http://www.irian.at
Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German
Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
