JavaFX CSS significantly differs from W3C CSS (Forked from RE: Proposal to move default style-class from Control to SkinBase)
tom.schindl at bestsolution.at
Thu Aug 8 01:22:35 PDT 2013
on CSS as a spec: You are right the spec does not only hold a language
definition but also the definition of e.g. the
box-model, ... who simply can not be applied to FX
unless you completely revamp how it works
on CSS: The grammer of the CSS-Language is at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/grammar.html with a descrption at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html with updates in later
specs and CSS can not only be applied to HTML-Doms but e.g.
also to SVG where you have completely different attributes.
See www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-SVG11-20110816/styling.html how few
properties SVG and HTML-CSS share! So to me it looks like the
authors of SVG see CSS in the same way the JavaFX-Team does it
as a styleing DSL leaving out things like the Box-Model, ...
on SASS: I see no reason it can not be used. Like I said SASS is simply
syntatic sugar above the CSS Language, but it does not really
care about how the properties are named! I've attached you a
sample of scss file derived from the projects website using
JavaFX properties and to me the output looks correct, maybe
there are advanced features I'm not aware of - I haven't used
SASS at all
on Compass: This one does not work with FX because it somehow deals
with the properties
on reusing CSS-HTML-Properties: I think the confusion would be getting
worse if we'd start mixing HTML-CSS-Property names with -fx
ones (which we need in any case) - even if we can get them
100% HTML-CSS compliant.
I don't see me blindly copying a HTML-CSS which assumes the
Box-Model, element-types who are not existing in FX at all
On 08.08.13 02:58, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:
> Go to the CSS W3C website and read the spec, you'll see that it's not
> only a language.
> No SASS can't be used with JavaFX unless you make a SASS of your own
> that works like the original but with JavaFX CSS files.
> Thanks, regards,
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Tom Schindl <tom.schindl at bestsolution.at
> <mailto:tom.schindl at bestsolution.at>> wrote:
> SASS can be used as well in fx, it is simply a preprocessor, like
> LESS, and for CSS the language and selectors there is a grammer!
> CSS is simply a DSL and its most important part are the selectors
> and its cascading nature.
> Von meinem iPhone gesendet
> Am 08.08.2013 um 02:11 schrieb Pedro Duque Vieira
> <pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com <mailto:pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com>>:
>> I might have jumped the gun when talking about LESS, I'm not
>> actually familiar with it and thought it would be along the same
>> lines like SASS.
>> But still you can't use SASS or Compass with JavaFX CSS.
>> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira
>> <pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com <mailto:pedro.duquevieira at gmail.com>>
>> > So if you invent the same node-types you have on the web (lets face it there's only a handful of them most important are most likely div,span) and give them the same properties you know from the web you can copy your Web-CSS stylesheet to your FX-Application.
>> +1 to this idea (in a 3rd party lib).
>> > The issue I see is that JavaFX CSS significantly differs from W3C CSS
>> It surprises me that this issue comes up so rarely in
>> JavaFX forums (almost never) - perhaps it is because
>> JavaFX developers tend to be Java developers rather than
>> A related open jira request
>> is http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-9272 "need to
>> reconcile JavaFX CSS with W3C CSS3" 0 votes (no interest
>> at all?).
>> In terms of conversion of existing html css resources to
>> javafx css, you may be interested in a Q&A with a
>> developer who converted the Foundation look and feel to
>> JavaFX (https://forums.oracle.com/thread/2490009) - from
>> his point of view the conversion process was quite
>> straight-forward - though perhaps that was partially luck
>> of the draw.
>> Below is a copy and paste from an earlier JavaFX forum
>> post on this topic:
>> You know, sometimes I find JavaFX's lack of certain css
>> features refreshing. It is nice to have all, well, almost
>> all, of the JavaFX CSS documented on one page. I think if
>> you were to do the same thing for w3c css then it would
>> end up with a much larger, more difficult to understand
>> document and even what the contents of that document
>> should be would probably be pretty controversial, in the
>> same kind of way that the HTML5 specification ended up
>> being. Microsoft contributed over 7000 tests to w3c just
>> to cover only a subset of the css rules available in
>> browsers today. The webkit project lists almost a thousand
>> open CSS
>> bugs: https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?product=WebKit&component=CSS&resolution=---.
>> So implementing even partial w3c CSS support is a complex
>> When I first started using JavaFX CSS I found the
>> differences to w3c CSS quite jarring, and it was hard to
>> account for them. Now that I am used to JavaFX CSS, I
>> don't have as much of an issue. The difference in names
>> and semantics is going to be an impediment to designers
>> working on JavaFX who are familar with w3c CSS - but the
>> designers will quickly also discover that FXML is not HTML
>> HTML deployment. So, perhaps, in the larger picture, it is
>> not as big a deal as it would seem. Still, one can't help
>> think that any impediment to people easily picking up and
>> adopting JavaFX is doing the technology a disservice.
>> There are other advantages in having the JavaFX CSS in its
>> own namespace to w3c css, in that it can evolve
>> seperately, it is not expected to be exactly the same
>> because it has a different name, it is not expected to
>> fully implement w3c css as browsers do because it's
>> clearly a different thing by name, etc. There is even
>> precedent for it in the use by mozilla of moz- CSS
>> prefixes and webkit css
>> properties http://css-infos.net/properties/webkit - the
>> web as not as standard as a lot of people propose. JavaFX
>> CSS is backing a JavaFX rendering engine and not an HTML
>> rendering engine. It is quite remarkable that Oracle was
>> able to build and make available a CSS model for JavaFX
>> that feels as familiar as it does to w3c css, as w3c css
>> is targeted very strongly toward styling a completely
>> different technology set (HTML markup and document object
>> It would be useful to have a tool which translates w3c css
>> to approximations of JavaFX css and vice versa, or the
>> ability for JavaFX to have a mode (perhaps a boolean value
>> when a stylesheet is loaded) to perform an automatic alias
>> or mapping of w3c css to javafx (at least for the subset
>> of w3c css which would make sense to automatically
>> translate to JavaFX css). (David commented on this part
>> previously - "Closing the gap between JavaFX CSS and W3C
>> CSS will be an evolutionary process. It would be nice to
>> use a standard's based stylesheet but there is not always
>> a 1-1 mapping to JavaFX. But for those properties that can
>> be mapped, it is something that should be supported. For
>> example, we should be able to handle "font" or "-fx-font".")
>> Comments above relate to the naming and semantic meanings
>> of css tags, and not the syntax and parsing of css (as
>> both w3c css and javaFX css seem to be equivalent in the
>> later regard).
>> The JavaFX css model is really powerful and I have found
>> really useful some of the additions that it adds above the
>> baseline 2.1 css that is found consistently in browsers.
>> With the upcoming Java CSS object
>> model http://javafx-jira.kenai.com/browse/RT-17293 "CSS
>> Style Object Model in Java" 23 votes, you will also get
>> better programmatic access from Java, which seems to be a
>> highly requested feature.
>> Hi John,
>> Thanks for your input. That's exactly my view on things.
>> I'm also surprised so few people ever talk about this, not
>> wanting to hurt anybody's feelings, I guess the vast majority
>> probably don't do web development or are not really acquainted
>> with CSS and its intricacies, but that's just a guess.
>> Also one more advantage I see if JavaFX complies with w3c CSS
>> (on the things that count) is that CSS is a continuously
>> evolving technology with a lot of people already working on it
>> and evolving it (for instance, the broken layout system is
>> being rewritten with things like the box model), if JavaFX
>> follows along it will benefit from that web of knowledge.
>> @Tom Schindl: I'm not talking about only the "CSS language",
>> there is no such thing (I guess its also a bit controversial
>> to call "JavaFX CSS", "CSS" at all). W3C CSS is much more than
>> a "language", what good would CSS be if you hand't got
>> keywords, like "font", "color", "margin", etc.
>> You also don't have to invent all the nodes "div", etc, to rip
>> the benefits of having a more compliant W3C CSS. These can
>> come later.
>> One of the problems is that JavaFX adds a "-fx-" prefix to
>> every keyword, the use of this prefix was meant to distinguish
>> experimental browser new specific features during their
>> testing, experimentation period. This was during an
>> experimental phase, and was meant to be dropped as soon as all
>> browser implementations of that new feature work the same.
>> In JavaFX by contrast, this was added for the purposes of
>> being able to write in the same stylesheet file both web w3c
>> css and JavaFX css without the 2 clashing into each other. But
>> I don't agree with this, and I think it's such a minor use
>> case that the disadvantages clearly outweigh the advantages.
>> For this use case why not have 2 separate stylesheets, what's
>> the issue of separating things into 2 distinct files and also
>> I think that it's much simpler to read and maintain 2
>> different stylesheets that cram everything into 1.
>> But all this can be changed, we can have both -fx- prefixed
>> properties and non -fx- prefixed properties and with this not
>> breaking backwards compatibility.
>> Thanks, regards,
>> Pedro Duque Vieira
>> Pedro Duque Vieira
> Pedro Duque Vieira
-------------- next part --------------
More information about the openjfx-dev