Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

REBOL FAQ updated

 [1/28] from: carl::s::rebol::com at: 12-Sep-2002 16:40


The REBOL Language FAQ is alive again. Check it out at http://www.rebol.com/faq.html. Now that the FAQ is stored in REBOL format, it will get updated more often. -Carl

 [2/28] from: morgenwe:optonline at: 12-Sep-2002 23:26


Carl Look like the links are broken Larry Carl at REBOL wrote:

 [3/28] from: atruter:hih:au at: 13-Sep-2002 14:33


Odd. The FAQ works fine under IE but Opera (6.0.5) doesn't reposition the document on the clicked item (although it does redisplay the page). Anyone else have similar issues? Regards, Ashley

 [4/28] from: anton:lexicon at: 13-Sep-2002 14:36


Hooray! Anton.

 [5/28] from: atruter:hih:au at: 13-Sep-2002 14:58


Carl, I especially liked: "If you have a large, costly project that will depend on REBOL, and you need the security of knowing that REBOL is not "going away", you can purchase a special REBOL license from us that will give you access to our source code escrow account." I have been on a project (not REBOL related) where this was *the* deciding factor.
<snip>
#076 Can I create Windows installers for my REBOL programs? Yes. If you purchase REBOL/Encap, you can access the Windows registry API and perform custom installation of your program. We provide an example Install.r script that shows how to create and modify registry entries, create file shortcuts, add uninstallers, program groups in the start menu, and more. An example of a standard Installer graphical interface is also available at no additional charge. </snip> When? ;) Makes sense to bundle all this in with Encap. #001 How do I get REBOL to not ask me for permission to write files each time I start it? - This HREF fails. #75 For more information, contact - this entry is incomplete Apart from that, good effort! Regards, Ashley

 [6/28] from: al:bri:xtra at: 13-Sep-2002 17:06


Looks good! Thank you, Carl! Andrew Martin ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/

 [7/28] from: hallvard:ystad:helpinhand at: 13-Sep-2002 10:14


Same problem here, but I use the same version of Opera as you do. I believe this is an Opera bug, I think I have seen it before too, in previous versions. So Opera Softwere is to blame, not RT. ~H Dixit [atruter--hih--com--au] (06.33 13.09.2002):

 [8/28] from: brett:codeconscious at: 13-Sep-2002 18:49


Be nice if the FAQ was also available as a REBOL/View rebsite. Regards, Brett.

 [9/28] from: joel:neely:fedex at: 13-Sep-2002 6:58


Hello, Larry, RT, and all, There are breakages in the HTML, which different browsers treat differently... For example (indentation added for clarity): <A NAME="#075"></A> <P> <TABLE WIDTH="100%" BORDER="0" CELLPADDING="5" CELLSPACING="0"> <TR BGCOLOR="#E0E8E0"> <TD WIDTH="80%"> <P> <B> #075 How can I hide my script within a single executable program? </B> </P> </TD> <TD NOWRAP VALIGN="TOP" ALIGN="RIGHT"> <P> 12-Aug-2002 </P> </TD> </TR> <TR> <TD COLSPAN="2"> <P> We sell and license to a tool called REBOL/Encap that will compress, encrypt, and encapsulate your scripts (plus any data and images too) into a single executable file. This tool is fast and easy to use (runs without a GUI, like a compiler). For more information, contact <A HREF="mailto:[cindy--rebol--com]>us</A>. </P> </TD> </TR> </TABLE> </P> <A NAME="#001"></A> The closing quotation mark is missing from the HREF attribute of the last anchor tag above, which causes some browsers (at least) to think that the URL extends to the quotation mark preceding #001 in the next anchor tag. Larry Morgenweck wrote:
> Carl > Look like the links are broken
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> > Now that the FAQ is stored in REBOL format, it will get updated more often. > >
-- ; Joel Neely joeldotneelyatfedexdotcom REBOL [] do [ do func [s] [ foreach [a b] s [prin b] ] sort/skip do function [s] [t] [ t: "" foreach [a b] s [repend t [b a]] t ] { | e s m!zauafBpcvekexEohthjJakwLrngohOqrlryRnsctdtiub} 2 ]

 [10/28] from: gordon:raboud:ca at: 13-Sep-2002 8:55


Hello Sunanda; I appreciate that they didn't use CSS, which do NOT degrade well on all platforms that Rebol supports. You are contradicting yourself when you say that Rebol should 'commit to cross-everything compatibility' and then advice them to use CSS when a table would do just as well. Gordon (Still using the Amiga OS under QNX) -- On 13-Sep-02, you wrote:

 [11/28] from: chalz:earthlink at: 13-Sep-2002 11:45


> RT can demonstrate its commitment to cross-everything compatibility by > creating 100% standards compliant HTML. It'd also help reduce the sort of > quirk that Ashley has spotted. HTML 4.01 is a good standard to head for -- > and the pages are only a few minor edits away from meeting that,
*blinks* So, to be cross-everything, they should adopt standards which aren't universal yet?...

 [12/28] from: chalz:earthlink at: 13-Sep-2002 11:50


> <TD COLSPAN="2"> > <P>
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> <A HREF="mailto:[cindy--rebol--com]>us</A>. > </P>
Errr.. Umm... #075 How can I hide my script within a single executable program? 12-Aug-2002 We sell and license to a tool called REBOL/Encap that will compress, encrypt, and encapsulate your scripts (plus any data and images too) into a single executable file. This tool is fast and easy to use (runs without a GUI, like a compiler). For more information, contact #001 How do I get REBOL to not ask me for permission to write files each time I start it? 1-Jan-2000 Contact .. who? Certainly, it's there in the source code, but IE5.5 shows me no link whatsoever. Like Joel said, missing double-quote.

 [13/28] from: chris:ross-gill at: 13-Sep-2002 12:39


Hi Charles,
> *blinks* So, to be cross-everything, they should adopt standards which > aren't universal yet?...
What's the alternative? Reams of nested code to cater for poorly designed browsers? Stick with structured (X)HTML that any browser (on any device) will understand and attach a Style Sheet for those with compliant browsers. Not really that difficult and a faster and better experience for all. Web Standards will never be universal (someone, somewhere will always use a non-compliant browser), so why wait? On that note, I have a Make-Doc compatible formatter that outputs Valid XHTML (on most occasions -- 'make-rgdoc' in the 'Chris-RG' folder). Hope to have an online version soon with Web and View interface. - Chris

 [14/28] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 13-Sep-2002 14:17


> -- The site does use CSS for some things, but not for others. They could just > as easily have used it all the way through. As it is, it is a patchwork of > technologies rather than the sort of elegant design we'd expect from the > inventors of Rebol.
Amen.
> - A good resource for learning how to do CSS cross-platform is > > www.alistapart.com.
Thanks for this. I highly recommend Eric Meyer's wonderful book on CSS. He keeps a site for it: http://www.ericmeyeroncss.com/ He is a master of CSS and writes really well. The book is a delight to hold and look at. Good value in the age of bloated techno-publishing. ./Jason

 [15/28] from: robert:muench:robertmuench at: 14-Sep-2002 10:55


> -----Original Message----- > From: [rebol-bounce--rebol--com] [mailto:[rebol-bounce--rebol--com]]
<<quoted lines omitted: 5>>
> outputs Valid XHTML (on most occasions -- 'make-rgdoc' in the > 'Chris-RG' folder).
They could even use my make-doc-pro, generates XHTML, uses a simple CSS etc. So no problem. Code is available, but RT never moved to it and I don't know why. Robert

 [16/28] from: carl:s:rebol at: 14-Sep-2002 14:28


Just wanted to clarify what we're up to... For many years, it was our web page policy to stay away from *anything* that could cause browser problems, including CSS. We kept it very simple. As a result, our pages contained a very heavy dose of FONT tags... because we prefer sans serif faces for most web content. We checked our pages across all the browsers and devices out there (even several CE based browsers for example). All was good. Recently, however, we decided that the world must be pretty up-to-speed on CSS. We figured that the bugs and glitches would be hammered out by now. We like the fact that CSS reduces our average page download size -- by quite a lot. But, we do admit not to being experts in the subtle effects of CSS between browsers. Most of our site is generated by REBOL, using a single top-level template made by an HTML composer program. It's not a patchwork of technologies. That's all we use: simple HTML and REBOL. Recently, we decided to enable CSS and see how it would affect viewers. We've been gradually mixing those pages in with the rest, and letting users tell us if we messed up. So, your comments are useful and interesting to us. Considering how many web pages out there don't even come close to following HTML cross-platform standards (or standards at all), we are not that far off the mark. It's tough because there are still people out there using old AWebs on Amigas or ancient Mosaics on Solaris or Mac68k, etc. etc. Anyway, we'll still continue to move forward on simple forms of CSS that downgrade well and make corrections as we go. We can literally regenerate and update the entire site with the click of a single icon (REBOL). Thanks, and please keep that input coming... especially browser problems like the extra hash mark found in the FAQ anchor tags. -Carl PS: It's amazing that there is an entire book written about just CSS... At 9/13/02 02:17 PM -0400, you wrote:

 [17/28] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 14-Sep-2002 16:47


Thanks for the update Carl! Glad to see you're still able to come up for air once in a while. :) --Gregg

 [18/28] from: carl:cybercraft at: 15-Sep-2002 12:53


On 15-Sep-02, Carl at REBOL wrote:
> So, your comments are useful and interesting to us. Considering how > many web pages out there don't even come close to following HTML > cross-platform standards (or standards at all), we are not that far > off the mark. It's tough because there are still people out there > using old AWebs on Amigas or ancient Mosaics on Solaris or Mac68k, > etc. etc.
Ahem, yes. (: Not tried it with AWeb, but works as expected on IBrowse now. Nicely fixed, and appreciated. -- Carl Read

 [19/28] from: chalz:earthlink at: 14-Sep-2002 21:39


I'm not trying to be critical of RT here, because I don't trust CSS entirely myself, but it strikes me that if a platform/browser/system is incapable of running the REBOL apps designed for that system, it likely can't view CSS anyways. Ie, most systems that can run REBOL should be able to view CSS (or is this a gross over simplifcation?). If that's the case, screw it, use CSS if it benefits you in areas where only developers would be interested. (How many non-devs would really be that interested in the coding FAQ?) But that's just me ;)
> Just wanted to clarify what we're up to... > > For many years, it was our web page policy to stay away from *anything* that
could cause browser problems, including CSS. We kept it very simple. As a result, our pages contained a very heavy dose of FONT tags... because we prefer sans serif faces for most web content. We checked our pages across all the browsers and devices out there (even several CE based browsers for example). All was good.
> Recently, however, we decided that the world must be pretty up-to-speed on
CSS. We figured that the bugs and glitches would be hammered out by now. We like the fact that CSS reduces our average page download size -- by quite a lot. But, we do admit not to being experts in the subtle effects of CSS between browsers.
> Most of our site is generated by REBOL, using a single top-level template
made by an HTML composer program. It's not a patchwork of technologies. That's all we use: simple HTML and REBOL. Recently, we decided to enable CSS and see how it would affect viewers. We've been gradually mixing those pages in with the rest, and letting users tell us if we messed up.
> So, your comments are useful and interesting to us. Considering how many web
pages out there don't even come close to following HTML cross-platform standards (or standards at all), we are not that far off the mark. It's tough because there are still people out there using old AWebs on Amigas or ancient Mosaics on Solaris or Mac68k, etc. etc.
> Anyway, we'll still continue to move forward on simple forms of CSS that
downgrade well and make corrections as we go. We can literally regenerate and update the entire site with the click of a single icon (REBOL).

 [20/28] from: carl:s:rebol at: 14-Sep-2002 16:04


>#001 How do I get REBOL to not ask me for permission to write files each >time I start it? - This HREF fails. >#75 For more information, contact - this entry is incomplete
These have been fixed. Both were caused by a single missing quote in the HTML. Also, changed doctype to: DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" It's kind of odd that a 3.2//EN is not valid, because it once was. Anything else? Thanks, -Carl

 [21/28] from: carl:cybercraft at: 15-Sep-2002 14:35


On 15-Sep-02, Charles wrote:
> I'm not trying to be critical of RT here, because I don't trust > CSS entirely myself, but it strikes me that if a > platform/browser/system is incapable of running the REBOL apps > designed for that system, it likely can't view CSS anyways. Ie, most > systems that can run REBOL should be able to view CSS (or is this a > gross over simplifcation?).
Most probably can, but Amiga for one can't, as none of the three main Amiga browsers yet support CSS. That said, I assume CSS has a non-CSS default to fall back on when a browser doesn't support it, or is that too wild an assumption to make? I've not done anything with CSS. I also don't think you should assume that people will always use a full-spec browser if they've got one handy. Those on dial-up for instance may prefer to surf with the fastest browser they have when they're just looking for information in a hurry, and their quickest browser may not be their most full-featured one. -- Carl Read

 [22/28] from: chris:ross-gill at: 14-Sep-2002 23:47


Hi Carl,
> "Most" probably can, but Amiga for one can't, as none of the three > main Amiga browsers yet support CSS. That said, I assume CSS has a > non-CSS default to fall back on when a browser doesn't support it, or > is that too wild an assumption to make? I've not done anything with > CSS.
Every browser has style -- iirc, on Amiga browsers you can choose fonts/sizes to represent h1-h6, p, et al. So even with minimal markup, there is still shape to a document. CSS gives a site author the ability to set the style for browsers that support it. Try this -- http://www.ross-gill.com/make-doc.html -- and enter some make-doc text into the text area. The resultant document is valid and vanilla XHTML linked to a style sheet. It is equally readable on Opera6/Win and Voyager2/Amiga (yes, I have tested it). Except with Opera, IE and Netscape(6+) it looks the way I want it too -- unless the user turns off style sheets and get the look they want. (in the middle of all this is Netscape 4 which makes everything look terrible) nb. Still working on the style sheet so it's still beta. Also, please use sparingly...
> I also don't think you should assume that people will always use a > full-spec browser if they've got one handy. Those on dial-up for > instance may prefer to surf with the fastest browser they have when > they're just looking for information in a hurry, and their quickest > browser may not be their most full-featured one.
As has been mentioned, the straight HTML (as opposed to nested) should come through a lot quicker. - Chris

 [23/28] from: al:bri:xtra at: 15-Sep-2002 21:19


The other problem is that the writing is too small. In the CSS part, these lines: Font-Size : X-small ; should be eliminated. Andrew Martin ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/

 [24/28] from: g:santilli:tiscalinet:it at: 15-Sep-2002 11:54


Hi Carl, On Sunday, September 15, 2002, 4:35:31 AM, you wrote: CR> "Most" probably can, but Amiga for one can't, as none of the three CR> main Amiga browsers yet support CSS. That said, I assume CSS has a CR> non-CSS default to fall back on when a browser doesn't support it, or CR> is that too wild an assumption to make? I've not done anything with CR> CSS. Actually, if the HTML is written correctly, and the CSS is only used to improve the visualization of the page, you don't lose anything by looking at an HTML+CSS page with a non-CSS browser. It might just look a bit ugly, but well, most sites will if you use IBrowse. (I love IBrowse, and bought it; however, web designers don't seem to...) To summarize, unlike JavaScript CSS does not make a site unusable on browsers that don't support it. Regards, Gabriele. -- Gabriele Santilli <[g--santilli--tiscalinet--it]> -- REBOL Programmer Amigan -- AGI L'Aquila -- REB: http://web.tiscali.it/rebol/index.r

 [25/28] from: jason:cunliffe:verizon at: 16-Sep-2002 0:11


> It'd be worth looking at: > http://www.alistapart.com
Thanks again for this link. Been catching up - The site is incredible. State of the art.. ./Jason

 [26/28] from: carl:cybercraft at: 16-Sep-2002 18:33


On 15-Sep-02, Christopher Ross-Gill wrote:
> Hi Carl, >> "Most" probably can, but Amiga for one can't, as none of the three
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> Try this -- http://www.ross-gill.com/make-doc.html -- and enter some > make-doc text into the text area.
Hmm - I'd not done anything with make-doc, though I've seen mention of it often enough. So, I found the make-doc.r script and ran it, and it asked me for a file, so I gave it a little script to do whatever it does with a file, and it opened a browser window, but then the browser gave me a no-DNS-entry-found error. I think perhaps I'm missing something... So instead I just pasted the script into your box and hit OK. (:
> The resultant document is valid > and vanilla XHTML linked to a style sheet. It is equally readable on > Opera6/Win and Voyager2/Amiga (yes, I have tested it).
Yes, it was readable, though I wouldn't say tidy, as font sizes changed here and there for no apparent reason and there was a big, bold "Contents" in the REBOL header that wasn't in the original file. But then, this wasn't "make-doc" text, so I expect its format was wrong for starters.
> Except with > Opera, IE and Netscape(6+) it looks the way I want it too -- unless > the user turns off style sheets and get the look they want. (in the > middle of all this is Netscape 4 which makes everything look > terrible)
Our wish for looks over clarity has not been totally successful yet. (: -- Carl Read

 [27/28] from: chris:ross-gill at: 16-Sep-2002 11:27


Hi Carl,
> > The resultant document is valid > > and vanilla XHTML linked to a style sheet. It is equally readable on
<<quoted lines omitted: 4>>
> But then, this wasn't "make-doc" text, so I expect its format was > wrong for starters.
The Contents is generated automatically from make-doc text. It can be suppressed by using =toc (not sure if that was the original intention). Re. text sizes, check your browser settings -- the output uses standard HTML tags <h1>, <h2>, <h3>, <h4>, <ul>, <ol>, <p>, <dl>, <pre> (though should probably use <code>) etc. So however you have your browser set up to use those tags is how they should look. Below is a sample Make-Doc document. - Chris -- Test Doc ===Quick Intro This is a make-doc document, written in such a way that makes it quick to write and reuseable for a number of different activities, such as: *HTML Documents *Presentations *View-based Help Guides ===Basic Markup Each paragraph is seperated by one or more empty lines. In addition, they can be prefixed as follows. ---Heading One A major heading is prefixed with three equal signs: ===A Major Heading ---Heading Two A subheading is prefixed with three dashes: ---A Subheading ---Bulleted List A list item is prefixed with an asterisk: *List item 1 *List item 2 Results in: *List item 1 *List item 2 ---Numbered List A numbered list item is prefixed with a hash: #List item 1 #List item 2 Results in: #List item 1 #List item 2

 [28/28] from: gordon:raboud:ca at: 17-Sep-2002 10:47


Hello Carl; I second that. Nice job and looks very nice, (with AWeb II V 3.3). -- On 15-Sep-02, you wrote:
> On 15-Sep-02, Carl at REBOL wrote: >> So, your comments are useful and interesting to us. Considering how
<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>
> -- > Carl Read
Regards Gordon Raboud

Notes
  • Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
    View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted