27 Dec 2004
(updated 27 Dec 2004 at 05:41 UTC) »
Okay, I've refactored the rendering code so that it's all "libruin" inside and out. I also managed to fix a couple of color and size problems. It's really a thing to behold -- tab tab tab tab tab. Unfortunately, fast it is not. It takes 2-3 seconds to size and render even a marginally complex interface.
So now I have to choose between Savannah and SourceForge for hosting it as a project. I don't know that much about Savannah's policies, but it kind of seems like they want you to know way in advance whether you want your thing to be part of the GNU project, and if you do, it had better have Texinfo documentation. Well I just started this thing a month ago! So maybe I'm leaning towards SourceForge at the moment, because they just don't give a...
<button label="hello" oncommand="document.foo();"/>
So I figure I should put my Scheme-flavored oncommand in a different XML namespace, like so:
<button label="hello" xul-scheme:oncommand="(document-foo)"/>
That way, traditional XUL parsers can still interpret the XML without freaking out -- they can just ignore the "xul-scheme" namespace.
But it feels kind of... needlessly fragmented to me. And furthermore, in order to be able to do useful things in these little scriptlets, I need to implement a kind of DOM for Scheme. However, at the moment, my DOM functions are all built straight into libruin, which only renders stuff for ncurses. The ultimate goal in my doing all this was to create rendering support for my client-agnostic online gaming system, gzochi. So I'm also going to want, probably, a GTK+ version of this library. If that's the case, it seems a bit silly to build the Scheme DOM implementation into each of the libraries. I think it would make more sense to make something like SXML but for DOM -- that is, a fully-Scheme implementation of the W3C DOM. (The SXML people seem to think this is not terribly brilliant.)
What do all you people out there in computer-land think? I'm literally crying out for feedback here.