World: r3wp

Ladislav - I know, but imagine user will just want above mentioned 
variant - panel, which will be distinguished by a bit brighter bg 
color, not a drawn frame.

Pekr, by only allowing a single face (with any number of subfaces) 
inside such a frame style, layout would not be an issue.

What do you mean by box model aspects? margin, border, padding, content?

Henrik - aha, so you mean that FRAME would be special face type allowing 
to create various surroudings upone certain face? So that it would 
containt panel, or group? That might work ...

But of course then - we have altready those facilities for all faces 
- a box model, where's the space to draw any borders,etc. Well, we 
could say then, that FRAME is special decorative kind of style. The 
question is, if it would not be overused by uesrs, putting even buttons 
inside of FRAME, to have a decoration? :-)

Pekr, "That might work" - precisely. :-)

You don't need special enclosing face if you can use box-model for 
it and draw in the border.

Ladislav - box model/frame is not much of an issue for me. I think 
that worse problem for me is how currently resizing is behaving in 
above mentioned styles, and all that align examples and its naming 
- very confusing.

align and valign are pretty standard names if you've ever seen HTML, 
what's so confusing about them?

#[[Pekr
And align + valign is not understandable for me at all ....

Pekr]] - right you are, you should see the code to understand what 
the text means. In short, it means, that the HALIGN and VALIGN properties 
are set somehow, instead of using the default values, that are 'LEFT 
+ 'TOP

everything. Have YOU ever seen  html?

as I said - in html align = left | right | center ...

can you please explain to me, why the align + valign aligns left 
red box vertically in reverse position than signle align?

err, I meant: "ALIGN and VALIGN are set somehow, instead of using 
the default LEFT + TOP setting"

ALIGN + VALIGN does nothing

their values do

aha, now I look into the code - makes much more sense now. Then it 
is about the description in the demo, which confused me

ALIGN can be: LEFT CENTER RIGHT

as opposed to left right center... ;)

It is in the documentation

ok, my question towards the align, valign. I know we might want to 
be "compatible" to html, but to stay consistent - we have vpanel, 
and hpanel, not vpanel and panel. Wouldn't it be wise to use valign, 
halign too?

ok, got to go. So the only yet unexplained part to me is that of 
a resizing. As Rebolek hinted, it might be caused by the text being 
resized. It is just, that with examples I mentioned, the result is 
(of course IMO) not a desired one.

Regarding Henrik's FRAME note - that is a surprise for me, never 
heard about such a proposal, and disagree with it.

E.g. try also panels-26.r3 - why the last line of boxes stays "attached" 
to the bottomof the window, causing a space?

If you will say, that it is explainable by how the resizing model 
works, then I might reshape the question and ask how to avoid it?

#[[Pekr

I think that worse problem for me is how currently resizing is behaving 
in above mentioned styles

Pekr]] - resizing is behaving as it should. The problem is just that 
Bolek specified that the vertical size of the text is "unlimited" 
for resizing purposes. That is causing the layout to look ugly.

Ladislav, I discussed it a few days ago, but not to worry. Rebolek 
disagrees too, so it probably won't be done. My worry is that the 
act of creating a border or frame around a style will be an obscure 
part of a base style.

#[[Pekr

E.g. try also panels-26.r3 - why the last line of boxes stays "attached" 
to the bottomof the window, causing a space?

Pekr]] - that is an example "inherited" from Carl, and it behaves 
as it should, taking into account, how it was defined. You need to 
take a look at the code

#[[GiuseppeC

I have ran the latest RE-GUI and the examples. I have see that when 
the CHECK is off the "v" is still visible but greyed.

GiuseppeC]] - you are not the only one who dislikes this. Count me 
in.

#[[Henrik

My worry is that the act of creating a border or frame around a style 
will be an obscure part of a base style.
Henrik]] - you need not worry, it already works for all styles

Ladislav, we'll see.

No, you already can see it *is* implemented.

No, what we don't have is many varied types of compound styles, where 
this would be used. That is why I'm not convinced.

Used how? As I said it already *is* implemented.

Used for multiple compound fields, calendars, for example.

I don't understand where you see any problem.

We have also not shown that text-table can place widgets with pixel 
accuracy.

But never mind, it probably won't be really relevant until skinning 
starts.

As for example #26, I checked by adding following line to stylize:

    pad: pad [facets: [bg-color: orange]] 


So Ladislav is right, code behaves correctly - the last line of color 
boxes is shifted to the bottom by upper 'pad style resizing.

We here to help you, Pekr, we don't understand why you resist us.

What's the resistance? You just need to understand, that there might 
be some users, not understanding GUI internals imo. I put above comment 
on purpose here, explaining WHY exactly it behaves as it does. Just 
stating the something is correct without further explanation does 
not help to understand the case ..

as you can see from the discussion between Henrik and Ladislav - 
 not even RMA has unified point of view on how some features could 
be designed. So what is problem with me not eventually agree with 
what you cook behind the doors? :-)

Two notes:

- RMA is neither me, nor Henrik

- RMA has a unified point of view, it is the one you can observe 
when examining the published code and docs, all other things are 
just speculations

So what is problem with me not eventually agree with what you cook 
behind the doors?

- since we publish our results, I see this as a clear attempt to 
insult our good will.

And, especially from you, it is unfair, taking into account, how 
many times you did not put to use the oportunity to present your 
preference in various user polls. 'The informations about user preferences 
were much needed then, and it is a pity you, instead of helping us 
to know user preferences in many cases, try to dishonest our efforts 
publicly by misrepresenting it as "cooking behind the closed doors".

Ladislav - sorry, but now you should really take a break. What are 
you talking about here?

WTF is an attempt to insult your good will? Damned - this is SW development 
and desing, not a religion!

What users poll are you talking about? I do remember some, and when 
I can't take any preference, I don't participate. OTOH I put many 
comments in here. In fact - R3 situation is so "devastated" from 
the community point of view, that there is very little ppl participating 
in actually anything R3 related. Even in time of Carl's GUI, I might 
be the only public tester, may 1-3 other guys I remember. Where's 
all 300 ppl registered here with testing and comments? How much of 
input you get from any other person?

as for "cooking behind the doors" - where's the insult? Let's take 
an example with the FRAME. The only thing we knew for last two weeks 
was, that it will be somehow solved. And "somehow" = behind the closed 
door. I do remember Rebolek's preference of #FRAME keyword, some 
discussion about that, and then the release comes out, containing 
particular solution, which even Henrik (I regard him being part of 
RMA) questions ....

What I can see though, is a kind of syndrome of a developers, who 
live behind the closed door, and then wonder if another point of 
view is presented. It very often ends with statements like "you can 
take Carl's code, and do your own GUI". And I am far from alone receiving 
such a reply. And THIS is what I call as an insult, to ppl expressing 
different pov on the direction taken.