Hi Simon, well, but this would then be portlet container dependent, right? You'd effectively need to implement trinidad skinning in every portlet container.
regards, Martin On 7/26/07, Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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]> 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]> 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 >
-- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
