On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> > > > On 3/14/13 10:45 AM, "jude" <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > One of the reasons we like Flash and Flex is because it gives the > > consistent visual results across platforms. I'm a little concerned that > we > > are adopting JS and HTML approaches and will then inherit it's problems. > IE > > leaving the view to HTML. > I am concerned about that as well. I think there will be a curve where you > can get "pretty close" really quickly, but as you try to make it more and > more consistent it will cost you. I think most folks will make a trade-off > at some point. > > The only way to guarantee consistency is to spend a lot of time on a > standalone rendering engine, and that just isn't practical in my view. > > If you play with the prototype, it leverages absolute position and so far, > it seems to work reasonably consistently. What isn't consistent is the > default chrome around widgets. I'm not an expert on HTML/JS, but I believe > the biggest inconsistencies are around text flow and this framework is so > far not using that. It may turn out that we can get your widgets to layout > the same, but the cost of getting text to flow the same is high and won't > be > in early versions). Hopefully that would still be a viable strategy for > many. > There are ways to "zero out" the HTML elements. Each of the browsers set their default margins, paddings, fonts and so on. That causes part of the problems when getting a consistent look between browsers. When you reset those values you have much more consistency especially with text. I learned a lot from the Lynda.com courses on HTML and CSS but unfortunately I don't remember them now. I'm more in support of using an HTML canvas because it mimics the way we are doing things in Flash. I would not try and support browsers that don't have HTML Canvas like support. That's a black hole that will suck all our time up IMO. When it comes to it, it would be wise to recruit some HTML gurus out there (or if they are on the list to speak up) so we know better about the advantages and pitfalls of each approach if and when we go down that road. I'm sure Frank has some experience with this and it would be prudent to see where it is at. Maybe his renderer can be dropped in. > > > > One of the potentials I see in the Flex to HTML / JS projects is that we > > will eventually be able to create the same app from the same code base > and > > get the same look and feel as we do in Flash Player / AIR. If we have to > > start worrying about visual inconsistencies between browsers or export > HTML > > and CSS with patches for different browsers then what is the advantage? > IMO, it is the job of the SDK developers to hide those inconsistencies from > the site/app developers using the SDK. And that would be the advantage to > the users. > > > > > I know there is an advantage. It's that we can use AS instead of JS so > you > > get all the advantages of AS, like a strongly typed languages, packages > > etc. I think that's the Randori approach. That's a huge. But it doesn't > > address the view. At the end of the day we would still need to write the > > view in HTML or in your version of Flex use raster images instead vector > > graphics? Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm still in a wait and see. > Try the prototype. You write your view in MXML. I think I'm going to go > with bitmaps first, but if there is a way to use SVG hopefully someone will > make it work. This is Apache, not Adobe. Peter, Erik and I are not just > developing a product for you to consume. We need as many people as > possible > to contribute, not just wait for 3 folks to try to do what a full team at > Adobe did. > I will try it out when I get a chance. I read through it when you first posted the demo. I'm already working on a few Flex related projects and need those to finish up first. Are Peter and Erik working on Flex JS with you? BTW This is to anyone but what would help is more tutorials on how to help in each of the ongoing projects using Flash Builder 4.7 and having a footer linking to common links or at least to our home page.
