> MP0werd : Now wait a sec, lets just keep our goal in sight, a generic
> xTalk interpreter (and perhaps a compiler). Trying to store stacks as
> html would undoubtedly waste space and require time by OpenTalk to
> parse the file. That's not to say someone can't hack up a quick
> addition to OpenTalk that will generate these html things, and a
> simple interpreter for it too, but for a preliminary effort to create
> an open-sourced hypercard, lets not make things too confusing
Alain : Sounds reasonable.
> MP0werd : WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES WITH DREAMS FOR xTALK!!! Everybody
> has their own needs for xTalk, as julian just showed, everyone needs
> something slightly different for their needs, so while we're open
> sourcing our "OpenCard", why don't we keep the compiler and
> interpreter seperate from the stack writing routines, display
> routines, etc, so that other people can just take the interpreter and
> stick it into their own products. Imagine, clarisWorks with an xTalk
> interpreter?
Alain : Excellent idea. That way many other interested parties will
want to participate in this opensource initiative, even developers that
would have otherwise been competitors. Besides, modularity is never a
bad thing, in my view.
> MP0werd : We should make some form of appleEvent thing to allow any
> app using the xTalk routines to control each other, like Applescript.
> In fact, when we're finished with the interpreter, someone can make
> some kinda OSA extension.
Alain : You have my vote !
