I found that to write a formal 'css' specs in smalltalk could look
very similar to w3c css syntax: .bar { display: inline; border-left: 1px solid #d0cfd5; width: 1px; margin: 0px 5px; font-size: 80%; vertical-align: baseline; } could be written in smalltalk as: (styles addClass: #bar) display: #inline; borderLeft: (BorderStyle width: 1px type: #solid color: #d0cfd5); width: 1 px; margin: 0 px @ 5 px; fontSize: 80 p; verticalAlign: #baseline . I really thinking that what is good in css/html couple is the techique for dividing the actual markup and its visual appearance. Maybe someday we could have similar stuff in morphic / other smalltalk framework. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. |
Igor Stasenko wrote:
> I really thinking that what is good in css/html couple is the techique > for dividing the actual markup and its visual appearance. > Maybe someday we could have similar stuff in morphic / other smalltalk > framework. In Sophie we used XUL and CSS to build the UI :-) Using Tweak, not Morphic though. The basic principle shouldn't be to hard to apply to Morphic or other frameworks. Michael |
On June 4, 2009, Michael Rueger wrote:
> Igor Stasenko wrote: > > I really thinking that what is good in css/html couple is the techique > > for dividing the actual markup and its visual appearance. > > Maybe someday we could have similar stuff in morphic / other smalltalk > > framework. > > In Sophie we used XUL and CSS to build the UI :-) > Using Tweak, not Morphic though. The basic principle shouldn't be to > hard to apply to Morphic or other frameworks. > > Michael |
On 05.06.2009, at 06:13, Milan Zimmermann wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "essentially". Gecko renders HTML, Sophie does not. The Sophie UI (dialogs etc.) is specified using XUL - it describes how big a dialog is, where to place which widgets, and how they should look. These attributes come from cascading style sheets (CSS) so they are properly inherited / overridden by sub-controls. But the actual widgets such styled are regular Tweak widgets (though style support was added). You could use the same framework to style a Morphic UI. - Bert - |
On June 5, 2009, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 05.06.2009, at 06:13, Milan Zimmermann wrote: > > On June 4, 2009, Michael Rueger wrote: > > > Igor Stasenko wrote: > > > > I really thinking that what is good in css/html couple is the > > > > techique > > > > > > for dividing the actual markup and its visual appearance. > > > > Maybe someday we could have similar stuff in morphic / other > > > > smalltalk > > > > > > framework. > > > > > > In Sophie we used XUL and CSS to build the UI :-) > > > Using Tweak, not Morphic though. The basic principle shouldn't be to > > > hard to apply to Morphic or other frameworks. > > > > > > Michael > > > > So part of Sophie is essentially XUL renderer, similar to Gecko? > > Depends on what you mean by "essentially". Gecko renders HTML, Sophie > does not. I should have asked "so there is a module in Sophie that can render XUL into Tweak UI" .. I guess answer to this narrower question is there is. Which makes Sophie one of the few XUL renderers in existence, apart from Gecko and few Java based, as far as I can tell. It sounds like the Sophie module also allows Tweak widgets rendering defined by CSS ... > > The Sophie UI (dialogs etc.) is specified using XUL - it describes how > big a dialog is, where to place which widgets, and how they should > look. These attributes come from cascading style sheets (CSS) so they > are properly inherited / overridden by sub-controls. But the actual > widgets such styled are regular Tweak widgets (though style support > was added). yes.. Thanks, Milan > You could use the same framework to style a Morphic UI. > > - Bert - |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |