[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hello Pete Kirkham,
> Does the 'C' form have any relation to the 'C'
> programming language, other than use of braces?
Not really. The idea is to use a syntax that at
least looks familiar to C/C++/C#/Java coders.
> If not, then replace it with either UML 2 HUTN or
> ASN.1 value notation. The direct mapping of the
> schema for XUL to ASN.1 would give you something
> very similar; the UML 2 HUTN could (potentially)
> give you CASE tool interop. There doesn't seem to be
> any need to invent yet another curly brace language
> when there exist ones that cover your use cases.
Sorry I'm not familiar with UML 2 HUTN but I will
look into it. Thanks for the suggestion.
> Would the 'lisp' form support macros? You can get
> some way towards having the code look like the gui
> if you do (see example below). It also would seem
> more natural to use keyword symbols rather than @foo
> for the lisp form.
Again thanks for your suggestion. For now the
lisp-style syntax is just a basic syntax without any
macros. Thanks for the idea and the alternative Lisp
syntax suggestion.
> Am I right in thinking that the labels for your
> widgets are just close to rather than associated
> with the widgets they label?
Good point. The labels and widgets should get
connected for better accessibility. One "hack" is to
use a [label]for attribute.
- Gerald
-------------------
Gerald Bauer
Open XUL Alliance - A Rich Internet For Everyone |
http://xul.sourceforge.net
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
|
