Revolution and the Web, feedback wanted, Part 2 of 3
luis at anachreon.co.uk
Tue Nov 28 04:28:25 CST 2006
I still think we should piggy back on the XML description of the stacks
and inject the missing pieces there, I shouldn't think it's too far to
XHTML from there.
The injected pieces would be those as mentioned in 'Part 3'.
> From Andre, cont.:
> We know that our tools pallete doesn't match the usual web controls, so
> we need a new pallete with "web-savvy tools" this tools could be a
> simple modal plugin with new tools such as TEXT, IMAGE, CONTAINER, and
> this tools could be easily converted to the usual HTML + CSS. For
> example HTML uses nested nodes such as /html/body/div/p for a paragraph
> that belongs to a div. How is that different from Rev groups, if you
> group all your card controls in a parent groups and had a nice "web
> inspector" to give it a type "div" we could simply map the tree nature
> of HTML back to Rev by using nested the groups. So all we need is a new
> tools pallete able to create objects that can be easily converted to
> their web counterparts and a new inspector that should have features to
> aid this conversion such as "positioning tools", most of the CSS will
> use relative based position while rev uses absolute coordinates, a new
> inspector to deal with that kind of stuff.
> Take notice that what we're doing is not think how to map revolution to
> the web but the other way around, how to pick the most common web stuff
> and map back to rev so that after we do this mapping, we can simply
> write our web-tools.
More information about the use-livecode