>But who says UI's can't be made WITH a graphics language? Give me a break. :-) Who says a car can't be built WITH a hand tool box?
But would you? will you? ---------------------------------------------- http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Alastair Fettes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > That's a very good point. I totally agree that the rendering of an > application should be fairly independent. > > A couple points though: > > > SVG is a great vector graphics language (the > > clue is in the name), but that doesn't make it > > an application-building language. > > I agree that SVG is a greaph graphics language. That's why I > disagree with putting UI widget stuff in the spec. Such as a Textbox > widget. An example of my view point on this is I disagreed with > dSVG. But who says UI's can't be made WITH a graphics language? If > SVG keeps on doing graphics well people will want to use it to render > their UI's. It's not necessarly an application-building language but > an application "view" language. Using MVC you should be able to have > this separation you're talking about. > > > Well, I can't get excited about that - it's > > yesterday's news. We could do that already with > > Flash, and we will soon be able to do it again > > with Avalon. > > True, but Flash is proprietary and Avalon won't be cross platform. > > > To do things like this we need an architecture > > where the source documents are written in a > > device-agnostic way, using 'abstract' languages > > like XHTML 2 and XForms, which contain nothing > > specific to the platform they will run on. > > I disagree with this statement only with regards to XHTML. How is > XHTML not a UI language? If I may quote the XHTML spec > (http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/) > > "Abstract: > This specification defines the Second Edition of XHTML 1.0, a > reformulation of HTML 4 as an XML 1.0 application, and three DTDs > corresponding to the ones defined by HTML 4. The semantics of the > elements and their attributes are defined in the W3C Recommendation > for HTML 4. These semantics provide the foundation for future > extensibility of XHTML." > > XForms makes sense as the base data/state information for an > application, but not XHTML. I can see XHTML as one output format for > the application (as is HTML), but grouped along with SVG and > whatever. What prevents us from combining them as output languages? > > > A *real* challenge would be to write an > > application today that not only works across > > the web, but also works for a user regardless > > of whether they have for their UI a voice > > browser or a fancy vector graphics renderer. > > Now that would be something. > > What do you think of targeting an application from an XML based > architecture (as you mentioned, yet to be described though XForms > could possibly work) and using XSLT target it to a specific rendering > language such as XHTML, SVG, etc? > > Unfortunately I don't think Philip has finished his paper yet on > creating an entire application as just a set of XML Schema types and > using XSLT to target the UI language such as SVG or even XAML (see > his talk at SVG Open 2004). > > Thoughts? > Alastair > > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Mark Birbeck" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Alastair, > > > > SVG is a great vector graphics language (the clue is in the name), > but that > > doesn't make it an application-building language. The trend in most > other > > areas at the moment is to try to hide the specific rendering needed > for a > > particular document or form, not make it the most important thing. > > > > Yet bringing the UI to the fore is exactly what is happening to SVG > at the > > moment - we're going from hacking with HTML to get 'applications' > to work > > across the web, to hacking with SVG to get 'nice looking > applications' to > > work across the web. > > > > Well, I can't get excited about that - it's yesterday's news. We > could do > > that already with Flash, and we will soon be able to do it again > with > > Avalon. A *real* challenge would be to write an application today > that not > > only works across the web, but also works for a user regardless of > whether > > they have for their UI a voice browser or a fancy vector graphics > renderer. > > Now that would be something. > > > > To do things like this we need an architecture where the source > documents > > are written in a device-agnostic way, using 'abstract' languages > like XHTML > > 2 and XForms, which contain nothing specific to the platform they > will run > > on. These documents are then 'wired' into renderers that *do* use > specific > > languages - I call them UI languages - like SSML, SVG, HTML, or > whatever, to > > do the *actual* rendering. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mark > > > > > > Mark Birbeck > > CEO > > x-port.net Ltd. > > > > e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > t: +44 (0) 20 7689 9232 > > w: http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > > > > Download our XForms processor from > > http://www.formsPlayer.com/ > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alastair Fettes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 27 September 2004 00:46 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [svg-developers] Re: external rcc in Adobe Viewer 6? > > > > > > > > > Hi Jim, > > > > > > > Mixing HTML and SVG doesn't gain you much, in fact it gains you > > > virtually > > > > nothing but questions about how the two should integrate, and > much > > > bigger > > > > problem for the UA developers about how to fit everything > together. > > > > > > I disagree with this. Unfortunately I can't remember well enough > to > > > quote directly from Chris Lilley's keynote in Tokyo to say what > he > > > thought the great benefits of a mixed approach but I can give you > my > > > thoughts on it. > > > > > > Chris Lilley: Think you could provide some input on this issue? > > > > > > SVG is a great graphics language. HTML is a great text > language. > > > AFAIK HTML's original purpose was to display textual data and > > > information. SVG's original purpose was to display graphics. > Put > > > them together and you can display textual data as well as > graphics > > > effectively. > > > > > > I don't want to sound like a broken record here but SVG is a > great > > > way to do GUI widgets. A great way to replace the standard HTML > > > forms widgets would be to use SVG widgets. Gives you a bit more > > > control over the apperance than the way the browser decides to > render > > > them. Doing an application in this form might also make sense as > > > opposed to simply an SVG-only application implementation. > > > > > > That's my two cents. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Alastair > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > > > --------------------~--> > > > Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. > > > Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! > > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/1U_rlB/TM > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ------~-> > > > > > > ----- > > > To unsubscribe send a message to: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -or- > > > visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click > > > "edit my membership" > > > ---- > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/1U_rlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ----- To unsubscribe send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -or- visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership" ---- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
