For any included svg, it should not be linked files (to minimize HTTP requests). It should either be Base64 in CSS, or injected into the HTML as markup. It might be interesting to put together an SVG injector class which would basically embed the raw SVG code into the JS and inject it into markup as needed. If we could ensure that the raw SVG code would only be embedded once, that’s better than Base64 as it’s smaller.
If we could handle something like this “magically” with some [Embed] tags or something, that would be really cool and user friendly. I’ve been thinking about how to use SVG for things like item renderers lately… On Jun 15, 2016, at 2:03 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On 6/14/16, 3:25 PM, "jude" <flexcapaci...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you're using the default HTML elements I would have no expectation. I >> would expect the developer or designer to add their own skin set like >> FlatUI at a later time. >> >> But if you want a default style I would think there might be a happy >> medium >> with SVG skins. A while back Om made a SVG skin that looked identical to >> the Spark Button skin. It wouldn't be as much work as a full skinning set >> because the components aren't aware of them (they are backgrounds) but >> it's >> easy to see what was going on and how to change them. >> >> Pseudo states >> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/Pseudo-classes >> >> Is the goal for the SWF and the HTML UI to look exactly the same? > > Yes, it is a goal. > > Seems like we should try to do Material, but in my quick reading, it > allows for lots of different implementations, which is good because maybe > we can create a simple enough version for our current CSS support. Looks > like there are a bunch of different Material UI frameworks out there. > Supporting them out-of-the-box would be cool, but in looking at a few > github repos, it looks like they are also not relying on simple/single > HTMLElements. In general, Material and Bootstrap designers want to style > a few things that CSS doesn't allow you to style such as the actual radio > or check visuals in radio buttons and check boxes, so they wrap a radio or > check with a bunch of other stuff to make it work. What I think we want > for our basic set is the nicest possible look you can get without all of > that wrapping. Is the browser-native radio and check in violation of the > Material spec? If so, we may need to do some "approximating". > > Supporting Material as SVG might also be cool, but IMO, loading all of > those background doesn't make for the minimal set. But definitely worth > pursuing as a separate theme/component set. > > -Alex >
