World: r3wp

Embed rebol in CSS much like Javascript for the web?

Petr, CSS doesn't control behaviour, and nor should it.  At it's 
most complex, it has different rules for different states -- a:hover, 
a:visited, input:focus -- which is how I'd like a style system to 
work.

CSS is designed for documents, not applications.

The box model is appropriate for applications...

Not just the box model too -- SVG uses CSS for styling drawing objects.

http://www.ross-gill.com/r/vid-css.html

A small example.

HTML is also designed for documents, yet is being used for many of 
the applications that the new VID is designed for, no?

Gab, you're wrong. CSS is for styling of box models "containers" 
in application terms. Disable CSS on your favourite web-app and see 
what happens....

Chris: my point exactly. VID should map to the DOM with CSS and use 
REBOL instead of Javascript (or alongw ith....)

Get Firefox. 
Install the web developer toolbar plugin. 
Go to netvibes.com 
Disable all CSS via the web developer toolbar

Get the point?

Or even easier using just Firefox!  ->View->Page-Style->No Style

if box model means padding and margins, then the style system supports 
something similar. if it's what you can do with DIVs, then I strongly 
oppose it.

i.e. you can choose if your style will support it or not. it's hand 
coded for the style.

Chris, I would abandon VID3 immediately and use RebGUI if it were 
ever to behave like a web "application". Designing application user 
interfaces with HTML and CSS is a complete nightmare.

Did I miss the fireside announcement that was due this Monday??

graham, harvesting season. it's delayed.

Chris - if CSS does not control behavior, nor should it, - as you 
say - then - screw it. You guys should decide - if you want web, 
go web. But don't try to degrade VID3 to CSS model, because it would 
ease your life - your web life. You are not in VID land anymore.

If you want to build your web apps, then you have everything you 
probably need, no? html, js, css. Where's the place for VID there? 
Why the translator? Because some JAVA monkeys do that? Yes, because 
noone is going to tolerate monstrose JAVA web browser plug-in, which 
badly failed. Why don't you ask Flash guys for Flash to xhtml + css 
translator? I am against andy degradation of possible VID advancement.

We need VID3, we need plug-in, and we need to try to break-thru.

I believe, at some point, that actually some VID3 to xhtml plus js 
plus css could be done, but as a subset of VID3 functionality. But 
I refuse to limit VID3 in the very beginning design phase to some 
weird css model a priori.

someone knows PLEX (obsydian) ?

Cool-PLEX is the current name, IRC

they had a good semantic model for VID purposes

Henrik: that's not exactly what I'm driving at.  From a visual pov, 
it's very easy to put together an interface in HTML -- it's the behaviour 
part that bites.  Also, frameworks are becoming far more savvy -- 
they may not have the lexical elegance of Rebol, but others are narrowing 
down the patterns that make developing browser-based semi-distributed 
applications much easier.

Petr, I can't say I disagree with much Henrik put on his blog -- 
I have been advocating something similar for some time. It sounds 
consistent with the intent behind CSS, thus I'm curious exactly what 
aspect of CSS Gabriele and perhaps Henrik take issue with.  imo, 
the concept of a visual language that is hierarchial and context-specific 
is sound.  The actual implementation of CSS is kindof ugly..

If we are to, as you say 'screw', separating visual from function, 
then why bother when we still have VID 2?

Look at it another way -- if you are building a web application, 
you hire a designer to work on the interface.  The designer may adjust 
some of your HTML templates, but most all the work can be done with 
a style sheet.  That's it.  They don't need to go tinkering in your 
application code, they just need to know the elements of the interface 
and the range of states of those elements.  They code the CSS, bundle 
the images, then they're done and you can slot it into your interface 
without modification.

Where I have designed VID interfaces, I (or someone else) have had 
to implement my designs in lower level code, and still there are 
portions beyond my control.  And a change in the visual may change 
the functionality of the application..

Though don't misunderstand me -- I am not suggesting VID 3 should 
be an HTML/CSS/JS layout engine.  All I'm saying is learn from the 
good, proven concepts that exist in their design.

Maarten: I know what CSS is about. I don't want to use it for applications.

Yeah, why use a standard if you don't have to.

in VID3 function is completely separate from visual already. many 
people are strongly opposing that. I will fight for it.

It's hard to discuss this wihout any experience of what you have 
done so far.

I'll say...

Chris - I know, I remember your position. Was it REBOL2 or REBOL1 
world we were discussing that? VID 1.3 time. I too, asked Henrik/Gabriele 
about CSS. Because it would be cool, if we would be close to standards. 
Not because of standards themselves, but because of easy of deployment. 
But, as far as I understand the situation - Gabriele understands 
CSS, and so far, VID3 seems more flexible. If it would be upon to 
him, he would even more separate (completly) app logic and user interface.

As Graham says, it is difficult to judge, if you have no access to 
what is done. But - it is difficult to judge even if I have the access, 
as the thingy is not complete yet. I hope Gabriele is soon back on 
VID3.

Ok, I think we understand each other.

My idea is kind of VID3 translator/compiler - maybe with i limited 
functionality? I don't know, kind of how you decide if you output 
make-doc to pdf, html ...

Steeve, do you mean http://www.plextk.org?

GUI & functions: The only way I think we really can let GUI people 
work on it wihtout disturbing the code is to use a event model. So 
a GUI widget just sends an event to some rebol internal event-handler 
& dispatcher and this calls the app code.

So a GUI could look like this:
	...
	save: button "Save" [signal-gui 'save-contact-record]
	...

And to make it even more "self-contained" we could use:
	...
	save-contact: button "Save"
	...


And the GUI system would send a message of the form [save-contact 
left-click] or [save-contact right-click] etc.

So the GUI designers just need to now how to name the GUI elements 
the app code needs to reference.

Cool-Plex is now CA Plex =>
http://www.ca.com/us/products/product.aspx?id=258

Chris: "From a visual pov, it's very easy to put together an interface 
in HTML -- it's the behaviour part that bites."


From a visual pov, it's very easy to put together a document in HTML. 
For application interfaces, it's way too underdimensioned for the 
needs we have. I have been working for years with HTML+CSS+Ajax interfaces. 

 hope with VID3, I won't have to do that ever again. It's almost a 
 sad parody of real user interface construction. I'm amazed that people 
 are already forgetting how real user interfaces work.

Visually, it's very easy putting together an application inteface 
in HTML too.  Perhaps we have a different model of what an application 
is?

I think we do.

I hope I'm not infringing on a copyright but this quote from the 
commentary of the Halloween I document 

http://catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.htmlexplains that phenomenon 
quite nicely.

<q>

The difference here is, in every release cycle Microsoft always listens 
to its most ignorant customers. This is the key to dumbing down each 
release cycle of software for further assaulting the non-PC population. 
Linux and OS/2 developers, OTOH, tend to listen to their smartest 
customers. This necessarily limits the initial appeal of the operating 
system, while enhancing its long-term benefits. Perhaps only a monopolist 
like Microsoft could get away with selling worse products each generation 
-- products focused so narrowly on the least-technical member of 
the consumer base that they necessarily sacrifice technical excellence. 
Linux and OS/2 tend to appeal to the customer who knows greatness 
when he or she sees it.The good that Microsoft does in bringing computers 
to the non-users is outdone by the curse they bring upon the experienced 
users, because their monopoly position tends to force everyone toward 
the lowest-common-denominator, not just the new users.
</q>

Umm, I didn't mean to shut down the conversation with the MS bashing. 
 Wasn't really the point.  The point is that the trend in Desktop 
is to dumb things down, and that seems to have slipped into the web 
application domain as well.  Not our trend I hope.  The hard part 
being the balance between usability and developer bliss and sense 
of self-respect.  :)