Hello,
we are going to kick off the work on HTML activities for 0.100 with a
meeting.
Time: 22 April 2013 (14:00 UTC)
Place: #sugar-meeting (freenode)
It would be really useful to know how many people are interested to
contribute, so please try to participate or, if you can't, let us know that
On 04/11/2013 09:52 PM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
Hello,
I spent some time today thinking and experimenting with Chromium
integration and I have a more detailed plan to propose now.
There is an important premise to be made. In both Chromium and Firefox OS,
application's installation is very much
* Chromium integration.(..)
Many applications require connection for use.
2013/4/17 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com
Hello,
we are going to kick off the work on HTML activities for 0.100 with a
meeting.
Time: 22 April 2013 (14:00 UTC)
Place: #sugar-meeting (freenode)
It would be
Hi Ignacio,
you mean many existing chromium web applications requires an internet
connection?
On 17 April 2013 12:37, Ignacio Rodríguez nachoe...@gmail.com wrote:
* Chromium integration.(..)
Many applications require connection for use.
2013/4/17 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com
On 17 April 2013 12:31, Simon Schampijer si...@schampijer.de wrote:
Hey Daniel,
I have an extension that is using management.getAll [1] to collect the
extension info. I could not find any info about
chrome.runtime.connectNative, it is not part of [2], do you have any
pointers?
Hi Simon,
Yes..
2013/4/17 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com
Hi Ignacio,
you mean many existing chromium web applications requires an internet
connection?
On 17 April 2013 12:37, Ignacio Rodríguez nachoe...@gmail.com wrote:
* Chromium integration.(..)
Many applications require connection for
Yeah, but the idea is that web applications we write for Sugar will not
require an internet connection...
On 17 April 2013 13:40, Ignacio Rodríguez nachoe...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes..
2013/4/17 Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com
Hi Ignacio,
you mean many existing chromium web applications
Hi Jared,
(forwarding to the mailing list)
2013/4/17 Jared jaredestr...@gmail.com:
On 04/16/2013 07:23 AM, Manuel Quiñones wrote:
Hi Jared,
2013/4/16 Jaredjaredestr...@gmail.com:
Hello all, my name is Jared and I'm currently working on contributing to
the
TamTamJam sugar activity as
On 04/13/2013 02:42 AM, Daniel Narvaez wrote:
On 12 April 2013 23:18, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lionel,
we are more or less understanding each other :) I think there are really
three possible steps
1 A WebView with an html5/javascript based sugar-toolkit
2 Support for web
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
I might not have yet made explicit what a web application provides on the
top of an html page loaded in a browser, which is what we get with 1. Taking
a look to the Chromium documentation is a good way to get an idea of
Thanks Daniel. Lots of interesting points here!
On 17 April 2013 16:26, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
So the real benefit of the Chrome thing is the system integration? Is
that something really needed for Sugar? It would be necessary if we
were to port *all* Sugar activities to
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Perscheid michaelpersch...@googlemail.com
Subject:ANN] Four new OLPC Games by the Software Architecture Group
Date: 16. April 2013 08:22:27 GMT-07:00
To: Squeak in Germany / Squeak in Deutschland
squeak...@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Reply-To: Squeak
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On the negative side, gobject-introspection cross compilation still sounds
like a mess
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=592311
I worked on that code for a while at litl. Probably the best bet is
to not try
On 17 April 2013 17:39, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2013 16:26, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
So the real benefit of the Chrome thing is the system integration? Is
that something really needed for Sugar? It would be necessary if we
were to port *all* Sugar
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com wrote:
But is WebKit so much better? For example the WebKit2 decision _seems_ to
have been made by Apple engineers without even talking to major
contributors. The gtk bits are maintained the way we would like them to
but...
On 17 April 2013 19:20, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Daniel Narvaez dwnarv...@gmail.com
wrote:
But is WebKit so much better? For example the WebKit2 decision _seems_ to
have been made by Apple engineers without even talking to major
contributors.
Coming back to this point...
I think supporting an existing webapps framework (hopefully a standard at
some point) with it's system API, manifest, permissions etc, is important
also if the goal is just to get some Sugar activities running on other
platforms.
For example, even *if*
Hey,
lots of interesting projects and good points. We already discussed a bit in
IRC, but reposting here for everyone.
The most important choice seems to be be about adopting a full toolkit or
stick to plain html/javascript. From your list it seems like we have at
least three that should be
On 17 April 2013 19:40, Gonzalo Odiard gonz...@laptop.org wrote:
Coming back to this point...
I think supporting an existing webapps framework (hopefully a standard at
some point) with it's system API, manifest, permissions etc, is important
also if the goal is just to get some Sugar
Dear Amit,
I'm sorry that I took so long to reply.
I'm excited that you are interested in the Platform team's project to
support a distribution which
the Peru community/local lab is proposing as basis for deployment in Peru.
Currently we're about to reach 1.0 for Deployment Platform for XO
The PaletteWindow lost the horizontal padding when it started to be
used as replacement of palette menus. So now each implementation has
to add the padding.
Signed-off-by: Manuel Quiñones ma...@laptop.org
---
src/sugar3/graphics/colorbutton.py | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1
21 matches
Mail list logo
