inline
On 7/24/2023 5:09 PM, Michael Strauß wrote:
My comments below:
On Tue, Jul 25, 2023 at 1:18 AM Kevin Rushforth
<kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> wrote:
This seems like it might be a useful feature, if enough applications
would want to take advantage of it.
If we proceed, I have a couple comments:
* All of our existing CSS attributes use "-fx-" as a prefix. My
preference would be to do that for transitions as well, absent a
compelling reason to do otherwise. I note that you say in your design
doc that transition "...is special and distinct from all other CSS
properties". Is that the reason you didn't prefix it with "-fx-"? Is it
a sufficient reason?
The vendor prefix indicates a nonstandard/proprietary CSS property (see
also https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#proprietary). That's the case for almost
all JavaFX CSS properties (with one notable exception: "visibility").
However, "transition" is an exact implementation of the CSS standard, so
there's no need to use a vendor prefix. I think that would be setting a wrong
expectation, as CSS developers might think that "-fx-transition" works
differently than a standard-conforming "transition" property, when in reality
it's the same.
OK, that seems like a good enough reason.
* Initially, I wondered about your providing the CSS attributes without
corresponding API on the scene graph objects in question, but I think
that's a very good idea.
Note that if there's ever a compelling need to have an API on SG objects,
this can be retrofitted. But I doubt that such an API would be useful.
You're probably right.
-- Kevin
* This will need a lot of testing since it touches the CSS attribute
resolution mechanism.
Agreed.
