Differences between "standard" css

[David Grieve]

On Jul 6, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Pedro Duque Vieira wrote:

> I think that trying to be like "standard" css but at the same type also trying to be an optimized javafx version of it ends up with something that is neither. I think if Oracle is going for an optimized version of css for javafx might as well go all the way and define your own "language" (might be similar to css) since css has several issues and was intended for HTML not standard app development.

I think it is important to be standard where possible and applicable and darn close otherwise.  That we are not there yet is just a matter of resources and priorities. 

> 
> If we are to follow the W3C standard, which is a "good thing" ™, then we need to employ the -fx- prefix where javafx css syntax is not the same as, or not a part of, the W3C standard since such syntax would be considered a "vendor specific extension." 
> I don't defend following W3C standards just for the sake of being a W3C standard, I'm for being similar to standard css for the advantages I mentioned.
> One more question that I sincerely don't know the answer to: if you don't have the standard border-color, background-color, etc because everything is prefixed with "-fx-" and in some cases works different is it still considered a "W3C css standard", that javafx css is trying to be? 

This raises the question of what it means to conform the standard. One should not expect a JavaFX user agent to have the same requirements as an browser user agent. A scene-graph is not the same thing as an HTML document tree. If you apply the point in http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/conform.html#conformance to JavaFX, JavaFX can comply with the standard. There is still much work to be done in every area from the parser on down to get to that point.


David Grieve | Principal Member of Technical Staff
Mobile: +16033121013 
Oracle Java Client UI and Tools
Durham, NH 03824 
 Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment