World: r3wp

launches View but doesn't open the file

 here it launches, IIRc it did that immediate without me setting something 
 (now i prefer editor by  default, so cant check).

and by .r I mean a link that is actually a wrapper with all the crap 
needed to know what to do

 AFAK that is some html-markup, not *.r-created. On IE the plugin 
 installs automatically, on firefox that will come.

And plugins and mime are two things, plugins run inside the browser 
and need some marku (AFAIK), mime-types are launched by  external 
apps (rebol if the server says its application/x-rebol)

from http://www.rebol.net/plugin/tests/test.html: <OBJECT ID="RPluginIE" 
CLASSID="CLSID:9DDFB297-9ED8-421d-B2AC-372A0F36E6C5"

CODEBASE="http://www.rebol.com/plugin/rebolb5.cab#Version=0,5,0,0"
WIDTH="360" HEIGHT="444">

   <PARAM NAME="LaunchURL" value="http://www.rebol.net/plugin/tests/test.r">
   </OBJECT>

although, thinking about  it, i guess a plugin can catch mime-types 
too.

Reichart, I think I understand where our confusion lies.

There are two distinct issues that we need to seperate:
	1. "Automatic" installation of the plugin.

 2. Detecting and running a .r file. And by ".r" file, I mean a link 
 to a REBOL source file -- NOT a wrapper page or anything else (that 
 is really HTML and not a .r file).

Yup....now, when will we have flash like complete plug-in support?

To simplify the issue, let me pose a scneario. Joe has a fresh copy 
of XP, no REBOL nothing. He clicks on a .r file. You want the plugin 
to install itself and open the .r file inside the browser window. 
Am I understanding your goal?

To simplify the issue, let me pose a scneario. Joe has a fresh copy 
of XP, no REBOL nothing. He clicks on a .r file. You want the plugin 
to install itself and open the .r file inside the browser window. 
Am I understanding your goal?


No, I want it wrapped.  The ".r" is simply a reference point, since 
we don't have a word for a Rebol executable script.  Want to call 
it ".rrs" (Rebol run script) or something?  Flash calls theirs SWF, 
FLV, etc.

Ahh OK I understand. Well....we can look at developing something 
like that.

However, I don't understand why the current approach doesn't work 
for you. Why not just make a HTML page that has the plugin OBJECT 
tag, it will download, install automatically, and then run the .r 
script.

Do you have a link to a page where I can test this now?

Every plugin page works that way. When you include the OBJECT tag 
mentioned above, it downloads, installs automatically (with user 
permission), and runs the .r file in LaunchURL.

Using Object or Embed tag is the only way to tell the browser to 
download plugins. This is the default behaviour and IMHO Rebol plugin 
should follow it. No more, no less.

If newer versions of the plugin aren't compatible with previous, 
should have different classid. So I can (as webmaster) decide which 
version use.

Davide: Agreed. That is our approach. I'm open, however, to alternative 
ideas, if there is a realistic justifiable scenario.

Josh is it possible to call rebol function from javascript ? i.e. 
expose a function "eval" so when I click an html button I can call 
a rebol function.

Davide: Interesting idea. Didn't think of that direction. We'll add 
it to the proposed feature list....if others want this feature please 
chime in.

If this is possible, I could build html interface and use rebol instead 
of javascript and ajax.

Can you give me a little more detail on a proposed scenario so we 
can see how compelling this is?

Do you have a link to a page where I can test this now?

Reichart: http://www.rebol.net/plugin/tests/test.html

how about Firefox? Safari?

Using Internet Explorer 

Init with:

var rebPlug = new ActiveXObject("Rebol.Application");
rebPlug.LaunchURL="http://site/script.r";

After use it in html something like:


<input type="button" value ="Execute" onliclick="rebPlug.eval('myrebcode 
[a b c]') />

An improved Mozilla installation experience is coming, no promises 
on when. The effort we put into this is directly determined by how 
many "novice" Mozilla users there are. Most Mozilla users tend to 
be computer-savvy, so it might not be worth the effort for a super-seamless 
install. Thoughts?

Simple installation is foremost .. that's the main reason of having 
a plugin

otherwise they could just download and run the actual application

True. OK, we'll look more into this.

Davide: that Javascript is interesting, did you get that to work 
now?? (I'm just curious :))

.. actually I didn't tried, I used object tag and polling from rebol 
to detect keypress in html :-)

Okay, we'll toss that Javascript -> REBOL idea in the cooker. Thanks 
for bringing it up.

I hope that it will works because MS is changing the way object tag 
works in IE, isn't it ?

thanks to you Josh

An improved Mozilla installation experience is coming,


Ok.................so this answers my entire set of questions................... 
 my entire team uses FF.

For some reason I was under the impression that this whole thread 
was about making Rebol finally work on IE FF SA and OP.

Like Flash.

Aaahhh gotcha. Sorry for the confusion.

Yes, we're working on Mozilla support.

Being out of sync with each other can account for a lot misunderstanding..


I have but one interest, for Rebol to be a self standing usable glue 
for cool little apps on the web the same way Flash is for little 
animated vignettes.


For this to happen we HAVE to support the top 4 (IE FF SA and OP). 
 And Opera is about to GROW, and Rebol and Opera may turn out to 
be a match made in heaven.  Opera is the dominate browser of imbedded 
systems.  It will start making news in the next 4-6 months.

Hmm interesting you say that. I was thinking about that myself, as 
I have also fallen in love with Opera, but it currently has pathetic 
plugin support (it doesn't even support the Mozilla standard, only 
the ancient Netscape 4 API).

So, we're going to have to make a decision of whether to support 
Opera or not.....

And that's good feedback to have.

The main issue that's stopping us from full Opera support is scripting 
(Javascript -> REBOL -> Javascript). It uses this arcane infrastructure 
that was retired out of Netscape and Mozilla years ago. So, my question 
is, would you see REBOL succeeding on Opera *without* scripting support?

We should actually make contact with Opera's team directly.  They 
might be just as interested in Rebol as Rebol is in them.  I do not 
know anyone there ( I do know some of the FF team).  But I was planning 
to contact Opera soonish because I'm interested in working on a relationship 
where people buy a thintop (I'm coining this word for now) which 
is a super simple laptop with maybe a 1 gig sim card for memory, 
a keyboard, LCD display for lets say $100 bucks.   Has nothing BUT 
a browser (no OS….no M$ in other words).  I imagine this shipping 
with Opera built in, and I want it pointing to Qtask out of the gate.
 

So to answer your question, I think we need to get someone at Opera 
to take interest in Rebol, and help us solve problems.

Reichart, switching to private msg.

Now when it getsinteresting.. :)

: )  


no worries, I will update people of what we are doing on Qtask later 
as well....

You can buy those $100 laptops now from Negroponte's team.

Josh - Opera needs to be supported, definitely. The strange things 
is what you say, because the extended API announcement I pointed 
you to last time, was signed even by Opera company. Maybe you should 
check with Opera team ...

talk to the desktop team...(if that helps)

Josh - have you somehow resorted proxy detection? Without that, and 
without some ability to configure plug-in, many ppl will be unable 
to use plug-in ....