Revolution and the Web, feedback wanted, Part 2 of 3

Luis luis at
Tue Nov 28 05:28:25 EST 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 mailing list