Brett Handley wrote: >Re HTML. I wonder - is there any point worrying about HTML for new projects. > Well, Brett - all my project will be Rebol based. Rebol is cool, right? But - one of our "output devices" is gonna be web-portal. What can we do about it? Nothing. I have several complaints here:
- rebol cross platform principle is no more valid, sorry. We can hear Linux folks complaints that here or there View doesn't work correctly, not to mention non-existance of MacOSX port. What about Amiga, BeOS, or more valid PS2, Java-based, Tao etc. environments? I KNOW that RT is just few ppl and they can't do it all themselves - but that's just it - the reality! - there would have to be different model of distribution too. Some kind of Rebol player, self-maintanance. Download rebol and provide user with very easy installation. Don't ask him for proxy etc. set-up, if he surely has correct proxy set-up in his Windows setttings etc. I think that with preprocessor and rebol packages, we are relatively near. We just need to solve Rebol's own upgrade capability - which should not be a problem at all. But if Rebol will not be treated as kind of system plug-in - you will not get mass adoption, and in such case, I can't Replace html presentation by Rebol .... >My impression is that XHTML (XML) would be better as working documents for a > ah, so you talked about HTML vs XHTML? Well, so forget my above comments, although they are still valid in some point :-) >designer to manipulate going forward and the XMLC and Baracuda approach of >incorporating symbols into the source document is the right way to go. >However, I really don't know if the tools are supportive of this yet - maybe >a designer can jump in here and comment. I also don't really know if XMLC >and Baracuda have designed their respective embedded symbols simply enough >for an end-user. > I will look into barracude too to see what it does offer. My friend is far from being profi-level designer. But I work with what I've got - no chance to do web design myself anyway :-) >I agree with the point about RSP being an unsuitable format for working with >a designer. In my view it is equivalent to a serialised script and therefore >might have value in potentially being a sort of compiled form generated from >some other more user-friendly specification/model. > >I'd like a nice REBOL specific solution to this issue as well (I want to >rebuild codeconscious.com in a more context aware way than the string >approach I'm using now). I envisage that I'll use XML (XHTML + something) >as a editing space for my page design. The page design will be sucked up and >transformed to some sort of REBOL model or dialect. > I don't want to invent yet-another-aproach-to-build-websites. I want let designer his/her freedome to use tools which exist - FrontPage, DreamWeaver, etc. So the only suitable path for me is - custom tags, specific API (e.g. dialect), which will be handled on server ... > I'll then need a >processing model (hopefully the same dialect) that can bind my content to >these page designs and finally something to emit the markup. > > I don't want to bother with emiting markup at all if possible ... >"bind my content" is so easy to write, but I know it will be hard to design >a context model (engine) for page/site generation. Of course there'll be >other user-agents (REBOL/View, and new ones) to worry about too. > >...dream.........dream dream dream......la la la :^) > :-)) -pekr- > >Regards, >Brett. > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the subject, without the quotes.
