On Thursday 29 Mar 2012 21:29:39 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Florent Daigniere < > nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > > > Well, you're the one who defends that designers need to be able to touch > > the > > HTML... remember? > > > > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.devel/26552 > > > > Any solution involving GWT is no better than the current fproxy to that > > regard: > > designers would have to touch the java code to change the HTML structure. > > Perhaps, but not to change the general appearance - GWT more-or-less > dictates the structure anyway because you build the UI at a higher level of > abstraction.
The current system dictates the structure, and allows you to present it however you like with CSS. So does GWT, and this is probably also true with most other modern systems, and isn't a criticism: Presentation is CSS, structure is HTML. Structural changes can be implemented in principle with any toolkit including "keep the current system". But it means the advantages are not "it lets the designer change the HTML". They must lie elsewhere: - Benefits to programmers: Simpler, more maintainable, less ugly code. - Much easier to do most update-in-place, pop-up and similar javascript stuff because you can write it in (a subset of) Java. - Some widgets for doing standard things like setting dates. - Some common but complex things like email folder interfaces may be reusable. - It forces somebody to consider the structure from scratch. (Of course, this doesn't guarantee it will be better!) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20120330/5a95a477/attachment.pgp>
