Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Hi Peter, On 18/12/2015 02:21, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: I was messing with the HTML 5 Create Standalone in my project today. I got it to load in Safari from my local drive and I could change cards and see graphics load, objects hide and show, etc. It’s great! I'm really glad that your

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

When I said "millisecond," I meant precision to a millisecond. Otherwise timers would be a second or two or longer. That is possible? And will the commercial versions of LiveCode be able to create the HTML5 standalones? > On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:55 AM, Peter TB Brett

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

On 18/12/2015 10:34, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: When I said "millisecond," I meant precision to a millisecond. Otherwise timers would be a second or two or longer. That is possible? No, you won't get precision to a millisecond. With most browsers, you will get precision to the nearest frame

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

On 2015-12-18 11:34, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: When I said "millisecond," I meant precision to a millisecond. Otherwise timers would be a second or two or longer. That is possible? I would be very surprised if you need millisecond precision for anything UI related - just a guarantee that your

EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY and El Capitan

Since I 'up'graded to El Capitan (OS X 10.11.1) I've been getting an awful lot of LiveCode quit unexpectedly, with the report namechecking the sinister sounding Exception Note "EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY". This is happening with LC 6.6.2, 6.7.7, 7.1.1, and various 7.1.1 rcs. It generally (always?)

Re: EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY and El Capitan

Hi Ben, On 2015-12-18 11:57, Ben Rubinstein wrote: Since I 'up'graded to El Capitan (OS X 10.11.1) I've been getting an awful lot of LiveCode quit unexpectedly, with the report namechecking the sinister sounding Exception Note "EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY". This is happening with LC 6.6.2, 6.7.7, 7.1.1,

Re: Ineffective backGroundColor

Hi Richmond, On 2015-12-16 20:33, Richmond wrote: On 16/12/15 20:49, Richmond wrote: Why, if I set the backGroundColor of an object using a 3 number code (RGB) am I able to do a: put the backGroundColor and get those 3 values, while if I set the backGroundColor of an object using a

Re: Need help with my C to LiveCode skill

Thanks Everyone for the help. My problem I have is that there is an online Database that the mobile needs to search 20,000 users in the DB. Plus it is shared with a Legacy system, so no other option as I can't choose the algorithm. bitXor did the trick. Seasons Greetings to All and 2016 is going

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

> On 2015-12-18 11:34, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: > > When I said "millisecond," I meant precision to a millisecond. > > Otherwise timers would be a second or two or longer. That is possible? > > I would be very surprised if you need millisecond precision for anything UI > related - just a

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Peter what would be the best way - now or in the future to create the controller and interactivity in an HTML 5 exported app, and use standard HTML video elements to play the video? On Friday, 18 December 2015, Peter TB Brett wrote: > Hi Peter, > > On 18/12/2015 02:21,

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

On 18/12/2015 12:06, David Bovill wrote: Peter what would be the best way - now or in the future to create the controller and interactivity in an HTML 5 exported app, and use standard HTML video elements to play the video? I'm really sorry to disappoint you, David, but I haven't had the

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

It’s worth noting that Peter does musical applications. I suspect he wants his drums to be on time, and not that he’s expecting Superman to be using his UI. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe,

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

I am also interested in being able to have a player object in HTML 5 with callbacks and am excited to see that this is on the roadmap. Hopefully that can be done fairly soon after the release of LC 8.0. As far as precision I am syncing video to video so I don't need precision to the millisecond

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

9 ms for me is very good. I would be most happy with that! > On Dec 18, 2015, at 2:48 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > >> On 18/12/2015 10:34, Peter Bogdanoff wrote: >> When I said "millisecond," I meant precision to a millisecond. Otherwise >> timers would be a second or

Re: Licensing issues [was: Re: LC 8 DP 11]

On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 11:35:50 Mark Waddingham wrote in response to Peter Brett: On 2015-12-14 11:21, Peter TB Brett wrote: Hi Wilhelm, I find this newly installed monitoring process controlling the validity of older, but already fully installed versions an outright

Take a look back through 2015

There was a lot of code written, and plenty tea to keep us fueled. Take a look back through 2015 here - https://livecode.com/our-2015/ Enjoy Happy Holidays everyone Steven ___ use-livecode mailing list

Re: EXC_CORPSE_NOTIFY and El Capitan

On 18/12/2015 11:09, Mark Waddingham wrote: Could you file a report with the crash logs you are getting so we can take a look? Done, #16627 has 26 crash logs attached. thanks, Ben ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please

Re: Take a look back through 2015

Do you get to 198 countries by counting Scotland and Edinburgh as their own countries? > On Dec 18, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Steven Crighton > wrote: > > There was a lot of code written, and plenty tea to keep us fueled. > > > > Take a look back through 2015 here -

Happy Christmas! Also, FOSDEM 2016.

Hey all, Most of the core development team here at LiveCode Ltd. are off for our Christmas holidays from today. We wish you all the best for the Christmas break, and we're looking forward to more LiveCode fun in 2016! Normal code-wrangling activities will resume on Tuesday 5th January

Re: Take a look back through 2015

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Steven Crighton < steven.crigh...@livecode.com> wrote: > There was a lot of code written, and plenty tea to keep us fueled. > > Take a look back through 2015 here - https://livecode.com/our-2015/ That is a great post Steven! What a productive bunch you have

Re: Licensing issues [was: Re: LC 8 DP 11]

Wilhelm Sanke wrote: > I surely cannot afford the present Business license, but could live > with a new Indy-license starting August 2016, provided the Indy > license allows me to install Livecode - and different versions of it > - more than one time on one or more computers. Looks like section

Re: Happy Christmas! Also, FOSDEM 2016.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Peter TB Brett wrote: > Most of the core development team here at LiveCode Ltd. are off for our > Christmas holidays from today. We wish you all the best for the Christmas > break, and we're looking forward to more LiveCode fun in

Re: Take a look back through 2015

+1 I'm really excited to see V8 at full potential! Great work so far.  Bill William Prothero http://ed.earthednet.org > On Dec 18, 2015, at 9:55 AM, Steven Crighton > wrote: > > There was a lot of code written, and plenty tea to keep us fueled. > > > >

Re: Take a look back through 2015

Mark Wieder wrote: > Yeah, that's an impressive list. > > But "3.5x Faster" than what? > It's like those ads that feature "20% less fat" > > Nice to see that kilted Kevin has a glass of scotch close at hand I dunno, the performance boost seems reasonably well reflected in my most recent

Re: Take a look back through 2015

On 12/18/2015 03:03 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote: Mark Wieder wrote: > Yeah, that's an impressive list. > > But "3.5x Faster" than what? > It's like those ads that feature "20% less fat" > > Nice to see that kilted Kevin has a glass of scotch close at hand I dunno, the performance boost seems

Re: Take a look back through 2015

> Mark Wie. wrote: > But "3.5x Faster" than what? > It's like those ads that feature "20% less fat" :-) But: If oldWeight is 3.5*newWeight then newWeight is 1/3.5 of oldWeight what is 71.43% less fat (or whatever). > Richard G. wrote: > I dunno, the performance boost seems reasonably well

Re: Take a look back through 2015

Trevor DeVore wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Steven Crighton < > steven.crighton at livecode.com> wrote: > >> There was a lot of code written, and plenty tea to keep us fueled. >> >> Take a look back through 2015 here - https://livecode.com/our-2015/ > > That is a great post Steven!

Re: Take a look back through 2015

On 12/18/2015 09:55 AM, Steven Crighton wrote: There was a lot of code written, and plenty tea to keep us fueled. Take a look back through 2015 here - https://livecode.com/our-2015/ Yeah, that's an impressive list. But "3.5x Faster" than what? It's like those ads that feature "20% less

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Peter TB Brett wrote > Yes, you can already deploy a commercial HTML5 standalone from Indy or > Business edition, if you have the HTML5 deployment entitlement added on > to your license. Ahhh shoot! How did I miss that? $2K a year. While I'm not very bothered by HTML5 and

Re: Take a look back through 2015

On 12/18/2015 06:02 PM, [-hh] wrote: [With equal weights one would have: The average factor of 7.0.1/8.0.0 is around 1.8 (that is "45% less fat" would be comparable) the average factor of 6.7.1/8.0.0 is around 0.2 (that is "500% more fat" would be comparable)] OK. If I stop being flippant

Re: Take a look back through 2015

Accepted, of course. A lot of us can now better live with LC 8. [Because you are a LC big-cheese I thought more than 5 minutes about how you concluded from a factor of *3.5* speed increase to *20%* loss of fat . (By the way , the rounded result 0.2 gives of course a factor of 5=500%, that is an

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Did you expect to be able to deploy commercial HTML5 apps with community? Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Dec 2015, at 4:18 pm, Simon wrote: > > Ahhh shoot! > How did I miss that? $2K a year. > While I'm not very bothered by HTML5 and LiveCode Indy/Business as I can use >

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Monte Goulding-2 wrote > Hmm... I know big and rich are a matter of perspective but $500 is hardly > a massive expense. For me if it saved me more than a few hours it would be > a false economy not to buy it. hmmm... My post wasn't about the cost really. It's about the fact that although I

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Monte Goulding-2 wrote > Did you expect to be able to deploy commercial HTML5 apps with community? Nope. If I did a commercial HTML5 app it would have to be very big and my client very rich so not really a problem. Simon -- View this message in context:

Re: Player Object in HTML 5?

Hmm... I know big and rich are a matter of perspective but $500 is hardly a massive expense. For me if it saved me more than a few hours it would be a false economy not to buy it. Sent from my iPhone > On 19 Dec 2015, at 4:40 pm, Simon wrote: > > Nope. > If I did a