World: r3wp

DOC works? I'm very surprised, this style should be removed, I think.

Henrik, I don't think Cash screens resizes;-)

So simple Doc style displaying make-doc format is not going to be 
there?

Oldes, for layout, span, etc. This is covered by the resizing engine.

No, it's going to be there, but it won't be this current DOC style 
(which is some strange format anyway).

Also - one question to the text style - in Carl's GUI (at least that 
is my undersanding from the demo) it accepted the block of rich-text 
dialect? That is not so with R3 GUI, probably an intention?

I would like that the finished doc style supports images, tables 
and enough features to allow direct rendering of MakeDoc documents. 
This should simplify creating a documentation system, where we don't 
need to rely on browsers, when using browser-less platforms.

aha, so more complex issue ... I will remove it from the demo then, 
replacing it by some simple text style ...

(This could be a third party project?)

Hah!

Kaj - hah to what? :-)

I think that basic DOC style can be really simple and that it just 
will parse makedoc format to R3GUI layout.

So - I should forget Doc, right? Because I wanted to find the reason 
for it to doubling the content, so I wanted to fix it. If it is going 
to be removed, that would be waste of time ...

Hah to defining large subprojects and expecting someone else to do 
them

I prefer to start with small things :-)

Wise

why would it be large?

Pekr yes.

Henrik - there's no why imo yet :-) From my POV it is very preliminary, 
and I would orientiate myself to:

- adapting existing styles to new R3 GUI engine

- adding styles most commercial guis will need - table, tree, tabs

- be sure all styles behave in a platform compatible way (especially 
area)
- reskinning/respacing the elements

- add support for ctrl-tab at low level to switch between the tabs
- fix all hard R3 crashes

later:

- add support for accelerator keys, but visually, and in the code 
(requires rich-text, most probably autogenerated, to underline the 
letter, but it could be done a different way to - e.g. displaying 
boxes with accelerator keys upon the styles and Alt key press)

- improve the text quality, that is NOT ACCEPTABLE for the 21st century!

even later:

- add some funky styles as Doc to make documentations, wikis, etc. 
:-)
- HW acceleration support where possible.

A system that you let someone else write is never large. Yet I would 
say a documentation system is a large task

I just have to make my notes to the "button size" thread:


- "We can't easily make 50x50 button for e.g.?" - you can, just respect 
the fact, that every face has got a Max-size, and if you want to 
make something bigger, you need to specify the Max-size

- "you have init-size as an option, yet it is ignored,or totally 
twisted" - it is a resizing rule, that you can resize everything 
only to the Max-size limit; of course, you can make the Max-size 
bigger, but, if you forget, nobody can be cleverer than you are knowing, 
what is the Max-size you want to use

- '   view [button "ok" options [max-size: 200x200]]' - of course 
it works, allowing you to resize the button as specified

- 'So, I had a look at BUTTON source and button has init-size in 
options, so this is bug and [button "BIG" 100x100] should work. I 
will fix it.' - only over my dead body, the basic resizing rule is 
to respect the Max-size

only over my dead body

 - that should not be a problem, we meet today personally, no? :-))) 
 ... just a joke :-)

LOOL

Ladislav - maybe what Rebol thought about was to actually exposing 
max-size in an options block? Is that possible?

Rebolek has shown you how, even your code would allow you to resize 
the button

Now there is init-size, and my opinion is, that it is confusing, 
if the init-size is possible, yet it does nothing obvious. In such 
a case, I prefer to error-out at layout level, not allowing even 
init-size being specified inline ...

Kaj, perhaps this is the same misunderstanding as for host kit work. 
It seems that many times, when Carl or RM Asset offers a task to 
the community, the response is negative.

Bolek, I don't understad what 'bug' you found in button??? The init-size 
in options is OK

That is the basic resizing rule - no error, just resize respecting 
the Max-size. The resizing algorithm shall not be cleverer than you 
are, changing the Max-size sometimes, reading your mind.

It is correct that you can't do button 50x50 because the button definition 
is:
	facets: [
		init-size: 130x24
		max-size: 230x24
		min-size: 80x24
		....
	]

So as Bolek said..either make own 'fat-button' style or change the 
size related facets inline in your layout definiton.

init-size should be removed from the options, if it does nothing 
usefull imo ...

??? - it says, how you want to resize the face when shown for the 
first time

without init-size in the options definition you won't be able to 
set the size like: button XxY

That is *very* useful

On the other hand, Max-size says, what the resizing limits are.

Now I don't understand - what is it good for having button 100x100 
allowed to be specified inline, if the resizing does not allow me 
to have what I (user) expect? That should be precisely documented, 
or not allowed at all?

That is the property of resizing - you can resize, but resizing *always* 
respects Max-size

you can still specify any pair!  value in the defined resizing limits 
no?

also another possibility is to change also the max-size if user forces 
to change the size using the inline pair!

BTW, if you don't want to have any Max-size limit, you can just tell 
something like:

    max-size: 2147483647x2147483647

, which is exactly as good as "no limit"

facets: [
		init-size: 130x24
		max-size: 230x24
		min-size: 80x24
		....
	]


In above code, I thought, that we could allow setting of init-size, 
which would readjust the max-size .....

that's what I meant

Does a style have to have a max-size? I am worried about scaling 
to large screens. I remember that was a weakness of Carl's GUI. I 
know you guys changed the resizing algorithm, but I didn't catch 
what the new algorithm was.

No mind reading, if you want to change the Max-size, you need to 
know, what do *you* want it to be.

aha, clear, hmm ....

Are faces still scaled proportionally relative to their max-size?

by default every style has the max-size set to the 2147483647x2147483647 
value so I think that is enough

by default = unless it is not redefined in the style definiton

Brian: re the "does a style have to have a max-size?" - see my above 
note, how to arrange a Max-size as good as "no limit"