>> Nothing too major, but I think it goes almost >> directly against something we argued about >> for a fair while... > > I *know* that it is what we argued about thru and > thru. I really liked those 'abstract' entities, and > still do, and I was just getting over not having them > around. And now my prayers are answered .. whoooshh! > .. There back!
I thought you might be happy. I think I went wrong when I started arguing that we didn't need separate elements for <button> <field> etc, just a part and somehow merged that through to not needing a <buttons> element and then not needing a <parts> element. We need the <parts> element and now it's back. :) > I am flattered that I was right, but even happier that > we agree wholeheartedly on this issue (and many others > too, of course). We are definitely moving forward. :)) > > I'm not prescient or anything magical like that > though. I just read a few books assiduously and > discussed it a bit with my mentor. Maybe "a sharp eye" > if you insist! Well, for the record, it introduces an extra 4 lines of code into FreeCard to support the extra nodes that wouldn't otherwise be required, but the XML schema is definitely clearer this way. > Thanks for the update Adrian. We know how busy you > are. By the way, do note the latest post on the blog: http://www.communautic.uqam.ca/blog/ It is very much time to get FreeGUI converted to FreeCard - how's that MataCard exporter coming? :) > Alain Regards, Adrian Sutton. ---------------------------------------------- Intencha "tomorrow's technology today" Ph: 38478913 0422236329 Suite 8/29 Oatland Crescent Holland Park West 4121 Australia QLD www.intencha.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Freecard-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecard-general
