You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org> on 2017/11/14 15:10:21 UTC
About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Hi,
I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and feels
out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
The main concepts behind are great as well:
* Use concise and natural HTML
* Intuitive JS
https://semantic-ui.com
It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts and
this could be integrated.
This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time this
could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
and feels, all controls needed...
We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
create out own.
Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will need
to be develop by us
Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
what we need or take parts from here right?
Thoughts?
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Peter,
IMHO, dataProviders+itemRenderes in Royale List and Tablets is without
doubt the way to go. Is some of the features that made Flex so successful,
like RemoteObject or other "Flex" things, is what will make migration from
flex more easy and what a flex developer expect to see in Royale.
inline could be great as well for flexibility, but for me is totally
secondary, or at least less priority than the first one. If I'm going to
make an apache royale app I will need the first for sure, but the second
hardly.
Thanks
2017-11-14 17:26 GMT+01:00 Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
> itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce list
> and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
> in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not require a
> dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I think
> we should consider having both.
>
> ‹peter
>
> On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
> >there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
> >theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality
> >is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge.
> >That should also help create new good looking components (and themes)
> >easier by looking at the existing examples.
> >
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> >Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
> >To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
> >with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
> >
> >I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> >wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
> >based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
> >
> >Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
> >feels
> >out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
> >
> >The main concepts behind are great as well:
> >
> >* Use concise and natural HTML
> >* Intuitive JS
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic-
> >ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
> >8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=
> edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdir
> >GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
> >
> >Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
> >and
> >this could be integrated.
> >
> >This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
> >this
> >could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
> >and feels, all controls needed...
> >
> >We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> >create out own.
> >
> >Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
> >far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
> >need
> >to be develop by us
> >
> >Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
> >what we need or take parts from here right?
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5
> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&
> sdata=uofFjlOAiyWXA
> >GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi Carlos,
If it turns out you can create a default look for us without any SVG,
that's fine with me. SVG-as-skins could always wait for some other day.
I don't think potential users have said they must draw their visuals. So
I leave it up to you to decide what to work on. If it turns out you need
SVG to work, then using Sketch or something to work backwards from the
right mix of HTML/JS/CSS/SVG in the browser is probably a better approach.
If you can make it all work with SemanticUI, I think you can just take a
similar approach as you did for MDL. If the SemanticUI component set is
more popular among our users because it matches up well with current Flex
components, then I think it will become the focus and not have a separate
life like MDL.
Of course, I could be wrong...
-Alex
On 11/14/17, 11:28 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
Rovira" <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org>
wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>2017-11-14 18:26 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> You and others are definitely welcome to integrate SemanticUI like you
>>did
>> for Material Design Lite.
>>
>
>Ok, but as I stated before, if I invest in integrate SemanticUI the
>proposal would be as I commented before. To get our main set that most
>people will want to use. MDL was something done to have something with a
>good looking, but don't want another set that will have their own live
>separate of the rest and their own list of components, etc... just to set
>expectations.
>
>
>
>>
>> Regarding a more sophisticated option, I first want to see if SVG for
>> visuals is possible before we build a whole tool chain around it. So,
>> IMO, you could just use your favorite HTML/CSS/JS editing tools to
>>create
>> an HTML page or two that have a set of HTMLElement trees whose visuals
>>are
>> mostly or entirely made up of SVG. Each "tree" is a component like
>>Label,
>> Button, TextInput, etc. Then you post that and folks can interact with
>>it
>> and make sure it works correctly on all of the browsers we care about.
>> Then if you can show you can swap in a wildly different set of SVG (and
>> maybe some CSS), then we know you have abstracted out a "theme" and then
>> we can see what needs to be done in the tools to allow someone to
>>specify
>> a "theme" and swap out the necessary pieces.
>>
>
>Hi Alex,
>
>I can use Sketch as I showed before and post in a new thread the SVG and
>CSS they generated so you can
>grab that code and experiment with it in supporting it on the framework.
>Let me know and I'll post it soon.
>
>
>>
>> In parallel, we would be discussing what other trees/components we need
>>to
>> have, and also, what default SVG and CSS we want in our theme, and what
>> the design principles document must contain in order for some other
>> designer to propose a default look for the next component we end up
>>making.
>>
>
>Right, this can come as a second step.
>
>
>>
>> That's the way I think of it, but I am not a designer, so I could
>>
>
>I think we can explore that way and see what we found on the on the road
>:)
>
>Thanks
>
>
>> definitely be wrong...
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 11/14/17, 9:09 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
>>Rovira"
>> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi Alex,
>> >
>> >what you propose would be the more sophisticated option we can do. I
>>could
>> >invest in that, but I need to work with you, Peter closely to complete
>> >something.
>> >I see more probable that I can design each component, at least for a
>>first
>> >round, but I can't do the infrastructure we need to get SVG on place or
>> >other things that are more in your skills than mine.
>> >
>> >So for me Semantic is something I could try to do and would be
>>something
>> >that would allow many people to adopt Royale.
>> >I'll join Alex propose, if Alex, Peter and others team to make this
>>happen
>> >with some organization and plan behind (defined UI List to
>>complete,...)
>> >
>> >We can do both in the same Set: If we create our own set like Alex
>> >recomend
>> >with can create an infrastructure that allow us to paint what we want
>>and
>> >for HTML we can learn on how Semantic does to get minimal and natural
>> >output, but that will be our own implementation, not Semantic.
>> >
>> >I have still some days to dedicate to the website, but as finish that
>>and
>> >we put website live, I expect to go with this. But I need to know if we
>> >can
>> >join forces to make this happen, or if is only me, so I think I should
>>go
>> >a
>> >more simple path.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >2017-11-14 17:42 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>> >
>> >> Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation
>>goals
>> >> related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an
>> >> implementation goal was to create a component set where you could
>>"draw"
>> >> just about any visuals for the components.
>> >>
>> >> These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap)
>>and
>> >> now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to
>>have
>> >> component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes,
>>but
>> >>I
>> >> thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but
>>make
>> >> sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create
>> >> their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS
>>borders
>> >>and
>> >> background images.
>> >>
>> >> Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a
>> >>visual
>> >> model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so
>> >>that
>> >> in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent
>> >> look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open
>>Source
>> >> projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of
>>every
>> >> component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a
>>new
>> >> component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left,
>> >>etc.
>> >>
>> >> My 2 cents,
>> >> -Alex
>> >>
>> >> On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
>> >> >itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to
>>produce
>> >>list
>> >> >and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
>> >> >in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not
>> >>require a
>> >> >dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I
>> >>think
>> >> >we should consider having both.
>> >> >
>> >> >‹peter
>> >> >
>> >> >On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was
>> >>that
>> >> >>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever
>>default
>> >> >>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core
>> >>functionality
>> >> >>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS
>>knowledge.
>> >> >>That should also help create new good looking components (and
>>themes)
>> >> >>easier by looking at the existing examples.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>________________________________
>> >> >>From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf
>>of
>> >> >>Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> >> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
>> >> >>To: dev@royale.apache.org
>> >> >>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want
>>to
>> >>get
>> >> >>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent
>>the
>> >> >>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set
>> >>to be
>> >> >>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look
>>and
>> >> >>feels
>> >> >>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>The main concepts behind are great as well:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>* Use concise and natural HTML
>> >> >>* Intuitive JS
>> >> >>
>> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic
>> >> >>-
>> >> >>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
>> >> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
>> >> >>3
>> >> >>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=
>> >> edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi
>> >> >>r
>> >> >>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
>> >> >>
>> >> >>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition
>> >>concepts
>> >> >>and
>> >> >>this could be integrated.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this
>>time
>> >> >>this
>> >> >>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different
>> >>look
>> >> >>and feels, all controls needed...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need
>>to
>> >> >>create out own.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other
>> >>outputs
>> >> >>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs
>>will
>> >> >>need
>> >> >>to be develop by us
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with
>> >>create
>> >> >>what we need or take parts from here right?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Thoughts?
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>--
>> >> >>Carlos Rovira
>> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> >> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>> >> >>2
>> >> >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
>> >> f19d%7Cfa7b1b
>> >> >>5
>> >> >>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&
>> >> sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX
>> >> >>A
>> >> >>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Carlos Rovira
>> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C45acb788de594feb6e5308d52b82
>> 8c73%7Cfa7b1b5
>> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462762063546975&
>> sdata=eGvMWiC06W0Rx
>> >WxGBc5e7Hi3i9%2Fv4WLtFWlASIswb3g%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C347be1caa4764ba7345308d52b95f27b%7Cfa7b1b5
>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462845381286187&sdata=1XWxZou1ydOZC
>GH%2Ff8uaeIGNumcWVzDHAKrKfjmmPss%3D&reserved=0
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
2017-11-14 18:26 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> Hi Carlos,
>
> You and others are definitely welcome to integrate SemanticUI like you did
> for Material Design Lite.
>
Ok, but as I stated before, if I invest in integrate SemanticUI the
proposal would be as I commented before. To get our main set that most
people will want to use. MDL was something done to have something with a
good looking, but don't want another set that will have their own live
separate of the rest and their own list of components, etc... just to set
expectations.
>
> Regarding a more sophisticated option, I first want to see if SVG for
> visuals is possible before we build a whole tool chain around it. So,
> IMO, you could just use your favorite HTML/CSS/JS editing tools to create
> an HTML page or two that have a set of HTMLElement trees whose visuals are
> mostly or entirely made up of SVG. Each "tree" is a component like Label,
> Button, TextInput, etc. Then you post that and folks can interact with it
> and make sure it works correctly on all of the browsers we care about.
> Then if you can show you can swap in a wildly different set of SVG (and
> maybe some CSS), then we know you have abstracted out a "theme" and then
> we can see what needs to be done in the tools to allow someone to specify
> a "theme" and swap out the necessary pieces.
>
Hi Alex,
I can use Sketch as I showed before and post in a new thread the SVG and
CSS they generated so you can
grab that code and experiment with it in supporting it on the framework.
Let me know and I'll post it soon.
>
> In parallel, we would be discussing what other trees/components we need to
> have, and also, what default SVG and CSS we want in our theme, and what
> the design principles document must contain in order for some other
> designer to propose a default look for the next component we end up making.
>
Right, this can come as a second step.
>
> That's the way I think of it, but I am not a designer, so I could
>
I think we can explore that way and see what we found on the on the road :)
Thanks
> definitely be wrong...
> -Alex
>
> On 11/14/17, 9:09 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
> <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >Hi Alex,
> >
> >what you propose would be the more sophisticated option we can do. I could
> >invest in that, but I need to work with you, Peter closely to complete
> >something.
> >I see more probable that I can design each component, at least for a first
> >round, but I can't do the infrastructure we need to get SVG on place or
> >other things that are more in your skills than mine.
> >
> >So for me Semantic is something I could try to do and would be something
> >that would allow many people to adopt Royale.
> >I'll join Alex propose, if Alex, Peter and others team to make this happen
> >with some organization and plan behind (defined UI List to complete,...)
> >
> >We can do both in the same Set: If we create our own set like Alex
> >recomend
> >with can create an infrastructure that allow us to paint what we want and
> >for HTML we can learn on how Semantic does to get minimal and natural
> >output, but that will be our own implementation, not Semantic.
> >
> >I have still some days to dedicate to the website, but as finish that and
> >we put website live, I expect to go with this. But I need to know if we
> >can
> >join forces to make this happen, or if is only me, so I think I should go
> >a
> >more simple path.
> >
> >
> >
> >2017-11-14 17:42 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> >
> >> Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation goals
> >> related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an
> >> implementation goal was to create a component set where you could "draw"
> >> just about any visuals for the components.
> >>
> >> These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap) and
> >> now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to have
> >> component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes, but
> >>I
> >> thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but make
> >> sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create
> >> their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS borders
> >>and
> >> background images.
> >>
> >> Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a
> >>visual
> >> model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so
> >>that
> >> in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent
> >> look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open Source
> >> projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of every
> >> component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a new
> >> component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left,
> >>etc.
> >>
> >> My 2 cents,
> >> -Alex
> >>
> >> On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
> >> >itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce
> >>list
> >> >and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
> >> >in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not
> >>require a
> >> >dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I
> >>think
> >> >we should consider having both.
> >> >
> >> >‹peter
> >> >
> >> >On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was
> >>that
> >> >>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
> >> >>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core
> >>functionality
> >> >>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge.
> >> >>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes)
> >> >>easier by looking at the existing examples.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>________________________________
> >> >>From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> >> >>Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
> >> >>To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >> >>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
> >> >>
> >> >>Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to
> >>get
> >> >>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
> >> >>
> >> >>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> >> >>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set
> >>to be
> >> >>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
> >> >>
> >> >>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
> >> >>feels
> >> >>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
> >> >>
> >> >>The main concepts behind are great as well:
> >> >>
> >> >>* Use concise and natural HTML
> >> >>* Intuitive JS
> >> >>
> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic
> >> >>-
> >> >>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
> >> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
> >> >>3
> >> >>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=
> >> edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi
> >> >>r
> >> >>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
> >> >>
> >> >>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
> >> >>
> >> >>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition
> >>concepts
> >> >>and
> >> >>this could be integrated.
> >> >>
> >> >>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
> >> >>this
> >> >>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different
> >>look
> >> >>and feels, all controls needed...
> >> >>
> >> >>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> >> >>create out own.
> >> >>
> >> >>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other
> >>outputs
> >> >>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
> >> >>need
> >> >>to be develop by us
> >> >>
> >> >>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with
> >>create
> >> >>what we need or take parts from here right?
> >> >>
> >> >>Thoughts?
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>--
> >> >>Carlos Rovira
> >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> >> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >> >>2
> >> >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
> >> f19d%7Cfa7b1b
> >> >>5
> >> >>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&
> >> sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX
> >> >>A
> >> >>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C45acb788de594feb6e5308d52b82
> 8c73%7Cfa7b1b5
> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462762063546975&
> sdata=eGvMWiC06W0Rx
> >WxGBc5e7Hi3i9%2Fv4WLtFWlASIswb3g%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi Carlos,
You and others are definitely welcome to integrate SemanticUI like you did
for Material Design Lite.
Regarding a more sophisticated option, I first want to see if SVG for
visuals is possible before we build a whole tool chain around it. So,
IMO, you could just use your favorite HTML/CSS/JS editing tools to create
an HTML page or two that have a set of HTMLElement trees whose visuals are
mostly or entirely made up of SVG. Each "tree" is a component like Label,
Button, TextInput, etc. Then you post that and folks can interact with it
and make sure it works correctly on all of the browsers we care about.
Then if you can show you can swap in a wildly different set of SVG (and
maybe some CSS), then we know you have abstracted out a "theme" and then
we can see what needs to be done in the tools to allow someone to specify
a "theme" and swap out the necessary pieces.
In parallel, we would be discussing what other trees/components we need to
have, and also, what default SVG and CSS we want in our theme, and what
the design principles document must contain in order for some other
designer to propose a default look for the next component we end up making.
That's the way I think of it, but I am not a designer, so I could
definitely be wrong...
-Alex
On 11/14/17, 9:09 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira"
<carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org> wrote:
>Hi Alex,
>
>what you propose would be the more sophisticated option we can do. I could
>invest in that, but I need to work with you, Peter closely to complete
>something.
>I see more probable that I can design each component, at least for a first
>round, but I can't do the infrastructure we need to get SVG on place or
>other things that are more in your skills than mine.
>
>So for me Semantic is something I could try to do and would be something
>that would allow many people to adopt Royale.
>I'll join Alex propose, if Alex, Peter and others team to make this happen
>with some organization and plan behind (defined UI List to complete,...)
>
>We can do both in the same Set: If we create our own set like Alex
>recomend
>with can create an infrastructure that allow us to paint what we want and
>for HTML we can learn on how Semantic does to get minimal and natural
>output, but that will be our own implementation, not Semantic.
>
>I have still some days to dedicate to the website, but as finish that and
>we put website live, I expect to go with this. But I need to know if we
>can
>join forces to make this happen, or if is only me, so I think I should go
>a
>more simple path.
>
>
>
>2017-11-14 17:42 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
>
>> Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation goals
>> related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an
>> implementation goal was to create a component set where you could "draw"
>> just about any visuals for the components.
>>
>> These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap) and
>> now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to have
>> component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes, but
>>I
>> thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but make
>> sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create
>> their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS borders
>>and
>> background images.
>>
>> Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a
>>visual
>> model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so
>>that
>> in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent
>> look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open Source
>> projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of every
>> component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a new
>> component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left,
>>etc.
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> >For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
>> >itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce
>>list
>> >and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
>> >in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not
>>require a
>> >dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I
>>think
>> >we should consider having both.
>> >
>> >‹peter
>> >
>> >On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was
>>that
>> >>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
>> >>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core
>>functionality
>> >>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge.
>> >>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes)
>> >>easier by looking at the existing examples.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>________________________________
>> >>From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
>> >>Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
>> >>To: dev@royale.apache.org
>> >>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
>> >>
>> >>Hi,
>> >>
>> >>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to
>>get
>> >>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>> >>
>> >>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
>> >>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set
>>to be
>> >>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>> >>
>> >>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
>> >>feels
>> >>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>> >>
>> >>The main concepts behind are great as well:
>> >>
>> >>* Use concise and natural HTML
>> >>* Intuitive JS
>> >>
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic
>> >>-
>> >>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
>> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
>> >>3
>> >>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=
>> edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi
>> >>r
>> >>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
>> >>
>> >>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>> >>
>> >>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition
>>concepts
>> >>and
>> >>this could be integrated.
>> >>
>> >>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
>> >>this
>> >>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different
>>look
>> >>and feels, all controls needed...
>> >>
>> >>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
>> >>create out own.
>> >>
>> >>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other
>>outputs
>> >>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
>> >>need
>> >>to be develop by us
>> >>
>> >>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with
>>create
>> >>what we need or take parts from here right?
>> >>
>> >>Thoughts?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>--
>> >>Carlos Rovira
>> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
>> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>> >>2
>> >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
>> f19d%7Cfa7b1b
>> >>5
>> >>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&
>> sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX
>> >>A
>> >>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C45acb788de594feb6e5308d52b828c73%7Cfa7b1b5
>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462762063546975&sdata=eGvMWiC06W0Rx
>WxGBc5e7Hi3i9%2Fv4WLtFWlASIswb3g%3D&reserved=0
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Alex,
what you propose would be the more sophisticated option we can do. I could
invest in that, but I need to work with you, Peter closely to complete
something.
I see more probable that I can design each component, at least for a first
round, but I can't do the infrastructure we need to get SVG on place or
other things that are more in your skills than mine.
So for me Semantic is something I could try to do and would be something
that would allow many people to adopt Royale.
I'll join Alex propose, if Alex, Peter and others team to make this happen
with some organization and plan behind (defined UI List to complete,...)
We can do both in the same Set: If we create our own set like Alex recomend
with can create an infrastructure that allow us to paint what we want and
for HTML we can learn on how Semantic does to get minimal and natural
output, but that will be our own implementation, not Semantic.
I have still some days to dedicate to the website, but as finish that and
we put website live, I expect to go with this. But I need to know if we can
join forces to make this happen, or if is only me, so I think I should go a
more simple path.
2017-11-14 17:42 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation goals
> related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an
> implementation goal was to create a component set where you could "draw"
> just about any visuals for the components.
>
> These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap) and
> now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to have
> component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes, but I
> thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but make
> sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create
> their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS borders and
> background images.
>
> Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a visual
> model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so that
> in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent
> look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open Source
> projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of every
> component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a new
> component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left, etc.
>
> My 2 cents,
> -Alex
>
> On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> >For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
> >itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce list
> >and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
> >in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not require a
> >dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I think
> >we should consider having both.
> >
> >‹peter
> >
> >On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
> >>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
> >>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality
> >>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge.
> >>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes)
> >>easier by looking at the existing examples.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>________________________________
> >>From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> >>Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
> >>To: dev@royale.apache.org
> >>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
> >>
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
> >>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
> >>
> >>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> >>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
> >>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
> >>
> >>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
> >>feels
> >>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
> >>
> >>The main concepts behind are great as well:
> >>
> >>* Use concise and natural HTML
> >>* Intuitive JS
> >>
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic
> >>-
> >>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
> >>3
> >>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=
> edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi
> >>r
> >>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
> >>
> >>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
> >>
> >>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
> >>and
> >>this could be integrated.
> >>
> >>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
> >>this
> >>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
> >>and feels, all controls needed...
> >>
> >>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> >>create out own.
> >>
> >>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
> >>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
> >>need
> >>to be develop by us
> >>
> >>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
> >>what we need or take parts from here right?
> >>
> >>Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Carlos Rovira
> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
> >>2
> >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73
> f19d%7Cfa7b1b
> >>5
> >>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&
> sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX
> >>A
> >>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
> >
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation goals
related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an
implementation goal was to create a component set where you could "draw"
just about any visuals for the components.
These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap) and
now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to have
component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes, but I
thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but make
sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create
their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS borders and
background images.
Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a visual
model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so that
in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent
look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open Source
projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of every
component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a new
component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left, etc.
My 2 cents,
-Alex
On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
>itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce list
>and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
>in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not require a
>dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I think
>we should consider having both.
>
>‹peter
>
>On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
>>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
>>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality
>>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge.
>>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes)
>>easier by looking at the existing examples.
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>>From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
>>Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
>>To: dev@royale.apache.org
>>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
>>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>>
>>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
>>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
>>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>>
>>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
>>feels
>>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>>
>>The main concepts behind are great as well:
>>
>>* Use concise and natural HTML
>>* Intuitive JS
>>
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic
>>-
>>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344
>>3
>>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi
>>r
>>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>>
>>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
>>and
>>this could be integrated.
>>
>>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
>>this
>>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
>>and feels, all controls needed...
>>
>>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
>>create out own.
>>
>>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
>>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
>>need
>>to be develop by us
>>
>>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
>>what we need or take parts from here right?
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>--
>>Carlos Rovira
>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%
>>2
>>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73f19d%7Cfa7b1b
>>5
>>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX
>>A
>>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
>
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and
itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce list
and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick
in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not require a
dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I think
we should consider having both.
‹peter
On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality
>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge.
>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes)
>easier by looking at the existing examples.
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
>Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
>To: dev@royale.apache.org
>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
>
>Hi,
>
>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>
>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>
>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
>feels
>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>
>The main concepts behind are great as well:
>
>* Use concise and natural HTML
>* Intuitive JS
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic-
>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdir
>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0
>
>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>
>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
>and
>this could be integrated.
>
>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
>this
>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
>and feels, all controls needed...
>
>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
>create out own.
>
>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
>need
>to be develop by us
>
>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
>what we need or take parts from here right?
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73f19d%7Cfa7b1b5
>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata=uofFjlOAiyWXA
>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Yishay,
that's the main problem I see in MDL too. And that it was not our own
foundation.
I said that MDL was only something quick for people coming that see Royale
can do good looking UIs quickly.
But the problem was that we can't plan anything "cross" to all Royale since
Material has its own set of UIs (that many times was not on other Royale
sets) and it was tied to google material looking. That's not what we want.
So with Semantic, it would be more a way to do something like Basic-Express
but based on Semantic. That would allow us to make something more "low
level" while getting themes, easy html, and more...
So I see this as a a way to get best of both worlds.
2017-11-14 16:25 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
> there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default theme
> we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality is
> easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge. That
> should also help create new good looking components (and themes) easier by
> looking at the existing examples.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
> with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>
> I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
> based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>
> Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and feels
> out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>
> The main concepts behind are great as well:
>
> * Use concise and natural HTML
> * Intuitive JS
>
> https://semantic-ui.com
>
> It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>
> Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts and
> this could be integrated.
>
> This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time this
> could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
> and feels, all controls needed...
>
> We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> create out own.
>
> Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
> far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will need
> to be develop by us
>
> Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
> what we need or take parts from here right?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
haha, sometimes planets align Piotr! :)
2017-11-14 16:53 GMT+01:00 Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>:
> Carlos,
>
> Just quick from me. Today I have found exactly the same :D :)
>
> Piotr
>
> 2017-11-14 16:25 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>:
>
> > One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
> > there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default
> theme
> > we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality is
> > easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge. That
> > should also help create new good looking components (and themes) easier
> by
> > looking at the existing examples.
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> > Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
> > To: dev@royale.apache.org
> > Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
> > with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
> >
> > I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> > wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
> > based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
> >
> > Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
> feels
> > out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
> >
> > The main concepts behind are great as well:
> >
> > * Use concise and natural HTML
> > * Intuitive JS
> >
> > https://semantic-ui.com
> >
> > It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
> >
> > Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
> and
> > this could be integrated.
> >
> > This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
> this
> > could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
> > and feels, all controls needed...
> >
> > We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> > create out own.
> >
> > Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
> > far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
> need
> > to be develop by us
> >
> > Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
> > what we need or take parts from here right?
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Carlos Rovira
> > http://about.me/carlosrovira
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> Piotr Zarzycki
>
> Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
> <https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Carlos,
Just quick from me. Today I have found exactly the same :D :)
Piotr
2017-11-14 16:25 GMT+01:00 Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>:
> One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that
> there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default theme
> we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality is
> easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge. That
> should also help create new good looking components (and themes) easier by
> looking at the existing examples.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of
> Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
> To: dev@royale.apache.org
> Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
>
> Hi,
>
> I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
> with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>
> I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
> based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>
> Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and feels
> out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>
> The main concepts behind are great as well:
>
> * Use concise and natural HTML
> * Intuitive JS
>
> https://semantic-ui.com
>
> It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>
> Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts and
> this could be integrated.
>
> This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time this
> could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
> and feels, all controls needed...
>
> We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> create out own.
>
> Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
> far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will need
> to be develop by us
>
> Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
> what we need or take parts from here right?
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> --
> Carlos Rovira
> http://about.me/carlosrovira
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
RE: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Yishay Weiss <yi...@hotmail.com>.
One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was that there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core functionality is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge. That should also help create new good looking components (and themes) easier by looking at the existing examples.
________________________________
From: carlos.rovira@gmail.com <ca...@gmail.com> on behalf of Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM
To: dev@royale.apache.org
Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Hi,
I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and feels
out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
The main concepts behind are great as well:
* Use concise and natural HTML
* Intuitive JS
https://semantic-ui.com
It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts and
this could be integrated.
This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time this
could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
and feels, all controls needed...
We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
create out own.
Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will need
to be develop by us
Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
what we need or take parts from here right?
Thoughts?
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Carlos Rovira <ca...@apache.org>.
Hi Peter,
I mention it in my email at the end. We can talk with legal first, but in
theory MIT license allows us to do whatever we want as is the most
permissive open source license I know.
But you're right, before pushing project barebones for this, we'll be
talking with legal.
Thanks! :)
2017-11-14 17:24 GMT+01:00 Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> I did a quick look. Seems pretty cool and definitely useful. Plus it gives
> us direction. But please, please, please, figure out licensing before
> going a step further.
>
> This is what I found: https://semantic-ui.mit-license.org
>
> ‹peter
>
> On 11/14/17, 10:10 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
> Rovira" <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
> >with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
> >
> >I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
> >wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
> >based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
> >
> >Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
> >feels
> >out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
> >
> >The main concepts behind are great as well:
> >
> >* Use concise and natural HTML
> >* Intuitive JS
> >
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic-
> >ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccf07ee8f4d624dc3f3a808d52b71
> e30b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
> >8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462690496476790&sdata=
> BkWnPANyqUPXEK6AVBZ3
> >fgJEAbM%2Bd9EZkGThutaSNUA%3D&reserved=0
> >
> >It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
> >
> >Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
> >and
> >this could be integrated.
> >
> >This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
> >this
> >could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
> >and feels, all controls needed...
> >
> >We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
> >create out own.
> >
> >Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
> >far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
> >need
> >to be develop by us
> >
> >Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
> >what we need or take parts from here right?
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >--
> >Carlos Rovira
> >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
> >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccf07ee8f4d624dc3f3a808d52b71
> e30b%7Cfa7b1b5
> >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462690496476790&
> sdata=XRlG5rGdMKsEQ
> >kvFXCHG8%2FrRz%2F2gVSozQbMcXw%2B3LKo%3D&reserved=0
>
>
--
Carlos Rovira
http://about.me/carlosrovira
Re: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort
Posted by Peter Ent <pe...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
I did a quick look. Seems pretty cool and definitely useful. Plus it gives
us direction. But please, please, please, figure out licensing before
going a step further.
This is what I found: https://semantic-ui.mit-license.org
‹peter
On 11/14/17, 10:10 AM, "carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos
Rovira" <carlos.rovira@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrovira@apache.org>
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to get
>with our UI set + Look and feel effort.
>
>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the
>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set to be
>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation.
>
>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and
>feels
>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...)
>
>The main concepts behind are great as well:
>
>* Use concise and natural HTML
>* Intuitive JS
>
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic-
>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccf07ee8f4d624dc3f3a808d52b71e30b%7Cfa7b1b5a7b3443
>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462690496476790&sdata=BkWnPANyqUPXEK6AVBZ3
>fgJEAbM%2Bd9EZkGThutaSNUA%3D&reserved=0
>
>It has already integrations with React, Angular,...
>
>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition concepts
>and
>this could be integrated.
>
>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time
>this
>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different look
>and feels, all controls needed...
>
>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to
>create out own.
>
>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other outputs
>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will
>need
>to be develop by us
>
>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with create
>what we need or take parts from here right?
>
>Thoughts?
>
>
>--
>Carlos Rovira
>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2
>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccf07ee8f4d624dc3f3a808d52b71e30b%7Cfa7b1b5
>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462690496476790&sdata=XRlG5rGdMKsEQ
>kvFXCHG8%2FrRz%2F2gVSozQbMcXw%2B3LKo%3D&reserved=0