World: r3wp

How do I easily turn docs into html, readable along with images?

tricky

Googledocs can turn a doc into html ...

there are lots of different paths ... doc -> pdf -> html is one

I think Pekr speaks of the docs included in the RMA's gui zip. The 
format is apparently done to be converted by makedoc2.r

oh .. haven't looked at this.

:-) yes, jocko is right ... will have to look-up some old MDP scripts 
...

It's possible that these are done with Carl's WIP document generator. 
I'm not sure if that works with MDP.

could it be included in the distro, or even maybe better, to provide 
html version directly?

we want to ask Carl to free the WIP script.

if not, we'll have to modify MDP to be compatible.

well, you could run it via some automat script which makes your builds, 
to get us html, no?

it doesn't help, when we don't have the WIP script to parse the text.

Petr, the problem is, it's not MD(P) format and we don't have the 
generator script (yet).

Ah, so why Ladislav used such a format? Are those docs just an adaptation 
of Carl's docs? Or just to be later uploadable to official rebol.com 
site? OK, I can read plain text ....

Adaptation of Carl's docs

Kaj  sorry to tell you that but from you i'm  expecting nothing.

GuiseppeC you got my ask wrong... developing in the dark as they 
do in Rebol3 is not a good thing... Problem in this project is that 
most of us are spectators ...

from the page of RM-Asset.com we can read and I quote:

What's special about RM-Asset?

We are very productive. This is good 
for you because we need less time than you might have thought.

We 
are very efficient. Internally we joke and say 
All good software fits onto a floppy-disk!"


We keep things simple. Our solutions are simple, easy to install, 
maintain and use. Most solutions are designed to complicated. We 
have streamlined designs making us faster while resulting in higher 
quality."


Fine but since you took over this proect we don't even have a prospective 
documentation (list of the widgets you want in it, the condition 
of this project, the stepstones on the road)or an api documentation 
etc... this means 0 lines of code. you claim to be the best to work 
fast to be serious. I just ask you to prove it.

Shadwolf - this is not the right group to discuss advocacy/strategy 
kind of things. But here's my take:


- RMA is a commercial entity, and Robert made it clear enough - they 
develop GUI to the point, when it will be usefull for their business 
apps. The chances are, that if it is good for them, it will also 
be good for others


- Robert is a good guy! He pays several top community guys, and - 
he gives result of such work - FOR FREE!


- RMA guys are VERY open, to listen to other's opinion, it is just 
they will accept only REALISTIC proposals - trying to convince them 
to change to differet underlying toolkit CAN'T work at this point. 
Even if such a toolkit would be good time solution, there are no 
free resources to make such a big change


- RT (Carl), plus the community, should be gratefull, to have at 
least RMA's GUI, if there is not other gui in the spot, and RT itself 
is not active in that regard.


- If I should name at least something what I am not considering so 
optimal, then it is a bit of a closed nature of development. I mean 
- I might wrongly understand initial impression of a SCRUM model. 
I missed the big picture, plus particular reports ... but - ANYTIME 
I was not lazy to ask, my questions were answered. Anyone but me 
can do just the same - ask. This is called - communication :-)

So much for RMA and their relation to development of R3 GUI ....

As for the move to other toolkits. Reading some of your opinons, 
and not being good in low level details, I still dare to say, that 
you might get some things wrong. There would be imo no direct benefit 
in moving R3 Graphics to GTK+, Qt, etc. Most of those toolkits are 
just bigger. You also seem to overrate the difficulcy of porting 
View to different platforms. Just look at Steve Solie - he did Amiga 
port in nearly a no time - one month? Noone imo expected R3/View 
running on Amiga. All is needed imo is - free hands, knowledge, and 
will to do the port.

It would be nice if Cyphre would isolate platform specific layer 
of gfx, but that is what I understand from one of his latest messages 
he is going to do  ... then the porting should be even easier.

Ok, except that the power of REBOL was that it can run under 40 different 
OS !

Nowadays, it runs good for R2/View under Windows and MacOS... Linux 
lots of problems because there's so many version of Linux...

And for R3/GUI we have Windows version... and when Windows 8 will 
be released... not sure it will work.

Community has falling down and it is hard with no open source to 
attrack new developpers... I know host-kit is hybrid open source 
model...

Real question in 2011 is : port language on JVM because every computer 
and device (except iPhone) has a JVM in order to reach the mass market.

Make it popular and then we can found money, people to work on small 
VM that make the power of Power.

Used MDP to generate docs. Not optimal, but at least something. What 
I did was:

- replaced =image-code by =image
- shortened path, as images are just in the same dir as doc

- gui-panel-sizing-3.PNG should be renamed to gui-panels-sizing-3.PNG
- gui-panels-visibility.PNG is missing

nve - Rebol View never run across more than 3-5 OSes - Windows, Linux, 
Mac was always incomplete, Amiga R3 1.2.1 was last supported IIRC, 
maybe BSD OSes, dunno.

I expect R3 being ported to JVM would be - slow. Carl can compile 
R3 library to the target OS in almost no time. The problem is the 
rest - OS dependant stuff - and this IS actually open source. It 
needs to be ported to target system no matter what ....

Not sure it would be slow. Groovy++ can overperform Java and both 
are running on JVM.

Scala can reach the performance of Java. Computers are now powerfull 
enough.
And device too, Android SDK is Java.

What is the point, if you as well can be native?

Pekr native is a pain that's all ... it took already 5 years to do 
rebol VM version 3 on windows 32 and it's not over and according 
to the source code of r3-host-kit there is no GUI part in linux or 
macOS X.. we don't know either if more than the 3 main os will be 
supported and in what extense. Doing a change on 1 VM  means finding 
a way to do it on all other VM that's why if i remember well along 
the years R2 was supported on lesser and lesser OS and that's why 
too the rebol VM source code grow to a point that it was impossible 
for Carl to maintain it .That was the main justification for the 
retrofiting of Rebol VM  in the rebol 3  project... mean while all 
the  industry changed can you seriously say that  java vm is the 
same now that it was 5 years ago same goes for mono.

Industry has move to the cloud, so we have to focus IMHO on the language... 
and RT must offer cloud Services... 

and when you reach the mass market you may consider to built small 
VM for specific OS... 

RT has fail his idiom to be portable on over 40 different platform... 
and worth of that is REBOL has no VM on iPhone, Android, Symbian, 
or WebOS... 

even if R3 and with host-kit in theory you can do it, who is going 
to do it ?

You seem to be assuming that it will never happen. Why not entertain 
the idea that it will happen?

Nicolas, those 40 different OSes weren't really 40 different OSes, 
they were mostly different builds for at most a dozen different OS 
variants. Most of those OS variants are now no longer developed, 
or have changed so significantly that they are essentially different 
OSes now. The platforms that RT is actively supporting now for R3 
covers the vast majority of the current market, more than would be 
expected for an alpha product, and the host kit allows you to port 
it to the most obscure OS you want, as long as it can work on the 
scale that REBOL works at (not your microwave).


every computer and device (except iPhone) has a JVM in order to reach 
the mass market

 - Of the most popular smartphone platforms, only RIM and Symbian 
 (sometimes) have a JVM; iPhone, Android, WP7, and WebOS don't.

Aside from PCs and smartphones, there is no mass market that REBOL 
can fit into.

perhaps some embedded hardware, though.

anyone seen or heard from Bolek? he has not been around since wednesday.

I can see him from time to time on Facebook, but right now he is 
not there. I believe Cyphre has his cell phone  ...

One naming tip - I noticed, in button.r3 source file for e.g., that 
we started to use multiple draw blocks? That's good. So - e.g. clicker 
style has two draw states (frames) - normal, and focus. Just a question 
- does "normal" sound good in english? Shouldn't be "default"?

Cyphre tried to call him, but no response.

we started to use multiple draw blocks?

 - they've been there for a good while now. :-) regarding naming, 
 I think it should reflect the specific state, rather than having 
 a "default". I usually prefer 'up, 'up-hover, 'down, etc. This is 
 easier to map to a state machine.

Thanks for new relese!

I have one qeustion towards "faced" attribute. In fact I liked it 
- it clearly distinguished attributes, which are meant being local 
to each instance of the style. Could anyone elaborate on why it was 
deprecated, and how is such functionality replace in new release?

Pekr, in the older version there was FACED and FACETS definitions 
which in the end(during the face creation) got merged so we decided 
to use only FACETS for now to make the style definiton simpler. In 
fact almost every programmer who tried to dostyles got confused why 
there is FACED and FACETS(and noone really know the reason why it 
is there). So from now it's easier and every face attributes are 
defined in one place - FACETS.

I doubt it is a good decision :-(

then tell me why?

In fact in R2 I always wondered, what influences all instances, and 
how do I prevent sharing of stuff. So in R3 Carl introduced 'faced, 
which made obvious (at least for me), what is style local = not shared 
between instances.

I think that every novice, when trying to change e.g. button color/border, 
find himself in a situation, when he influenced all buttons, etc. 
It was because direct path modification vs using make for subobjects. 
That is why I welcomed the move to declarative style definition, 
where the distinction could be made ...

Or am I missing something?

try this:

load-gui
stylize [red-button: button [facets: [area-color: red]]]
view [
	red-button
	button options [area-color: green]
	button
]

I think this wirks just fine no?

The faced block is similar to facets block, but makes them local 
to each instance of the face. Now, they can be modified without effecting 
any other faces that are of the same circle style.
 It is taken from: http://www.rebol.com/r3/docs/gui/styles.html

Why Carl introduced it then?