[dojo-contributors] claro's reset CSS
bill at dojotoolkit.org
Mon Nov 29 20:41:15 EST 2010
Ok, that eliminates option #1, do you have a preference for #2, #3, or #4?
On 2010/11/30, at 9:37, sam foster <potatosculptor at gmail.com> wrote:
> I gave my 2c on this when claro was first committed. The document.css
> has to be opt-in, and should be treated just like we treat dojo.css -
> strictly optional and a convenience we provide. We could also provide
> the claro-fullpage.css if that is deemed helpful - I don't think it
> help enough to be justify the potential for confusion.
> The sandboxing of our theme css has been a strong feature of dijit
> since the start (and was carried over from pre 1.0). As Tom points out
> its important to a whole class of use cases for Dojo/Dijit. Having
> claro rules bleed into other elements on the page is a much bigger
> problem for me than a release note and documentation point that
> clarifies the purpose and need for the additional document.css
> 2010/11/26 Bill Keese <bill at dojotoolkit.org>:
>> Yup, we are both talking about http://trac.dojotoolkit.org/ticket/11616.
>> I am also leaning towards #4. Not sure about a claro-fullpage.css file, it
>> would just import claro.css and document.css, right? In the old days we
>> told people to import dojo.css and tundra.css separately and that seemed
> dojo-contributors mailing list
> dojo-contributors at mail.dojotoolkit.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the dojo-contributors