Feel free to add your feedback related to Cwicly’s Relative Styling feature here.
Allow custom input to write the CSS, instead of building it visually.
I think that would be a decent compromise for all users.
The option to build classes visually persists, and it makes sense for quite a few users, but no one would be forced to go that (in many cases) cumbersome route.
There are also cases which aren’t covered and could only be achieved by a customType.
It’s a massive trade-off for me, as it takes just too much time.
There were discussions in the past, but unfortunately no update/news to date.
This is a very good point, thanks for bringing this up @sunny.
Another use case which is currently not possible would be something like this:
Relative Styling not only gives one the possibility to create classes but also to manage them in a specific place.
That’s why I think it would still make sense if it’s possible to remove the block/global class as a default selector and start completely from scratch.
Another feature request I’d add in addition to the above is support for nested relative styles. Essentially, I want to be able to add relative styles inside relative styles. If used carefully, this could allow for quite elegant organization and application of targeted styling rules.
Just reacting to this thread to keep things up to date.
A lot has been done to Relative Styling since, including free-form rules which now allow you to achieve very particular sets as well with the unique .blockclass and :pseudos dynamic selectors, added in 18.104.22.168.1.
More features and improvements are already planned for Relative Styling also.
Feedback is welcome, so please don’t hesitate!
Sorry for not reacting earlier to your post, @avunu. I’d love to have a bit more detail (or a specific example) if possible so that I can picture this generally.
Amazing update that comes with a pretty elegant solution, well done and thank you!
I have a couple of points which initially came to my mind:
Could the .blockclass and :pseudos selectors be uneditable? So, when hitting backspace once, the “item” is gone. And when typing it manually, it transforms automatically into the “fixed” selector item.
Could the free-form rule stay in place when switching back to the RS builder interface? Currently, when switching, the input vanishes. Of course, only the visible rule (visual builder OR free-form) should be active/apply.
This one is probably “too much to ask” and won’t currently work out, specifically because of the free-form :pseudos selector. But would it be somehow possible to sync both the visual builder and the free-form rule? This would be extremely useful in quite a few scenarios.