Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Please! Resources were great way back when, but even Apple knows that they're going nowhere. Let's have a XML-based syntax for data files, and have the images as standard files... Put them in a bundle or an archive. It'll be much eaiser than futzing with ResEdit. Much more extensible, too.
------------------ Because it's there, MotherF----r
Hm.. sounds interesting.. it'd probably simplify programming a great deal. You could create a plug with a copy of SimpleText. No more messing with shipyard pict IDs, you'd only need to enter in a file name. Creating plugs with a copy of SimpleText and your graphic and sound programs of choice would be a great idea! No, really!
------------------ "There was a terrible ghastly silence. There was a terrible ghastly noise. There was a terrible ghastly silence." - Demolition of Earth, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
AIM: evandrewm
(This message has been edited by Andrew M (edited 08-08-2000).)
All I have to say is this: I know how to make plugins in ResEdit. I have little clue what XML is, let alone how to create something with it, and I don't know how to find out.
And, I for one don't find working in ResEdit unpleasant.
------------------
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that OS X will be using resource forks.
And although I don't have any idea when EV3 is going to come out, if I know anything about programming, and about Ambrosia, EV3 is going to be coming out within a few months of OS X, either before or after, as long as everything stays on track. That means it will be played on OS X, which means it would behoove Ambrosia to do away with the resource forks.
------------------ "Apple does not recommend allowing an elephant to operate a Mac in any environment."
I like ResEdit better...
Why would a new programming method be needed? I think ResEdit works pretty well and most wouldn't want to learn a coding language to make a plug... If it's not broke...don't fix it.
PEACE YO!
------------------ ~Kwanza~
"Quoted the Kwanza Man...nevermore"
AIM: Kwanzar26
Kwanzasoft Graphics (url="http://"http://www.crosswinds.net/~kwanza")www.crosswinds.net/~kwanza(/url)
Quote
Originally posted by Chrestomanci: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that OS X will be using resource forks.
iirc, MacOS X does have file forks, but they're handled differently. Instead of being in a monolithic file, they're part of the application package.
ANYWAY,
Yes dear gods XML. Weepul--it's okay, if EV3 goes XML-based, you'll fall down on the ground sobbing with joy for you will no longer have to deal with ResEdit or Resourcer. Instead, just open it on up in BBEdit Lite. The best way to explain it is that XML is a really, really, really strict markup language like HTML. Like AndrewM said, "no more messing with resource numbers". Just give a relative path to the pertinent file and it'd be set.
Ugh... I can just imagine if people start using absolute paths defined from document root. "But it works fine on my machine" ... "Yes son, but you coded it so it'll only work on your machine. Let me introduce you to my buddy Grep here..."
------------------ My signature is short and unobtrusive. I don't have a long sig to overcompansate for "ego" problems.
Mostly correct. MacOS X will have resource forks, in a sense. There will be folders that contain resources. A 'pocketknife' resource fork. Essentially, we can do one of the following: ()Try and figure out how the 'pocketknife' resource forks work. ()Build a stable editor. ()Struggle with C. ()Use XML and end the chaos.
Originally posted by Kwanzar: **I like ResEdit better... **
Have you ever written XML? Do you know what it is? Not trolling, just checking your background. If you don't know anything about it, you can't go proclaiming ResEdit to be the better choice. Illogical, not?
**
Originally posted by foo12: **Have you ever written XML? Do you know what it is? Not trolling, just checking your background. If you don't know anything about it, you can't go proclaiming ResEdit to be the better choice. Illogical, not? **
Don't twist my words...I simply stated an opinion which in no way puts down XML. I like ResEdit is better...does that mention anything like XML sucks...well...no. You just looking for something nail me with...but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon...Please...read carefully before even try to act like a badass and flaunt your "college smarts". Remember...most of the people here are like 14-15...so don't even try to act all high and mighty to anyone. Kids don't give a **** when you showoff...
No. I'm not 14 or 15...I'm 17...PEACE YO!
Originally posted by Kwanzar: I like ResEdit better...
Erm, how could you like it better if you've never tried the nonexistent options? I think that falsified that statement..
Well...I don't think that ResEdit is that bad, and a markup language like XML would be a good alternative, easy to use, easy to learn, but the problem that foo12 pointed out about non-descript links, and machine only plugs would play hell on developers, not to mention the fact that we would have to have a new bourd just to cope with "Why isn't this plug working?" topics... So the best thing to have would be a developer prog like Hera, except for EV. However this is probably not the first time that someone has thought of this idea.
N E Way there are new languages coming soon that could be better that XML, and perhaps even easier to use, if someone wacked up a GUI for them...just ideas
:eek:
------------------ Kberg
We are the Borg.
Lower your shields and surrender your builds.
We will add your networkable and technologicaly distinctive game to our own collection.
Your builds will adapt to service us.
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.
Originally posted by foo12: **And XML isn't a coding language. It's a markup language, comparable to standards compliant HTML. It's an extremely strict variant of SGML and is actually quite easy to learn. If you can learn to code HTML to standards, you can easily pick-up XML. **
Um, all I know in HTML is (IMG SRC="") and (A HREF="")(/A), oh yeah and (I), (B), (U), (FONT SIZE= COLOR=), that's about it. I make my web pages with an editor.
Thus, I've never learned to "code HTML to standards", whatever "standards" are.
I have, however, learned ResEdit well enough to do plugin editing and a few other things.
Does that say anything?
Originally posted by Kwanzar: **Don't twist my words...I simply stated an opinion which in no way puts down XML. I like ResEdit is better...does that mention anything like XML sucks...well...no. You just looking for something nail me with...but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon...Please...read carefully before even try to act like a badass and flaunt your "college smarts". Remember...most of the people here are like 14-15...so don't even try to act all high and mighty to anyone. Kids don't give a **** when you showoff...
Whoa Whoa chill Kwanzar...he's not twisting your words. You DO say you like res edit better.
Well how exactly can you like it better if you havn't tried XML?
I mean, he did have a point...just point it out
CS
I think someone needs sex. Anyway, lay off man... I justed asked if you'd actually seen what XML is. Reread the friggin' message:
"Have you ever written XML? Do you know what it is? Not trolling, just checking your background. If you don't know anything about it, you can't go proclaiming ResEdit to be the better choice. Illogical, not?"
AndrewM pointed out the same thing. Honestly you're starting to seem really paranoid, part of the reason why I added that "Not trolling..." line above. (If I wanted to troll, you'd know it. Actually the WWJD zealots would know it.)
As to your comments regarding me trying to impress people, stand back and read your little discourse below. I shan't become a punching bag anytime you find that my opinion differs froms yours. Moderators shouldn't do that, as it's unseemly behavior. Maybe it's too many years of usenet and being a longtime member of the Well, but I do know the difference between a fair moderator and a just plain crabby moderator. You're starting to sound a lot like the latter.
And Stockton, CA? I've got a good friend from San Jaun Capistrano who's transferring to UC Irvine this fall.
(This message has been edited by foo12 (edited 08-09-2000).)
Originally posted by Vindicator609: {...} but the problem that foo12 pointed out about non-descript links, and machine only plugs would play hell on developers, not to mention the fact that we would have to have a new bourd just to cope with "Why isn't this plug working?" topics
Actually it's not that hard to fix. Just code the links as relative to the directory, like one should be doing if you know a thing about HTML.
Originally posted by Weepul 884: Um, all I know in HTML is (IMG SRC="") and (A HREF="")(/A), oh yeah and (I), (B), (U), (FONT SIZE= COLOR=), that's about it. I make my web pages with an editor.
You should learn how to hand-code. It's fun, really, and your pages are less likely to break if you understand what's going-on behind the scenes. Even programs like DreamWeaver still foul up and produce bloated, inelegant, non-compliant code when there is a faster/better/easier way to do it and ensure rendering fallability and standards compliance.
You should be concerned about web standard compliance. It makes sure that web pages look the same regardless of browser, etc. and ends all this propietary "Best viewed with ..." crap that started showing up about 1996-1997 when IE came out.
I know a rather excellent web page designer. And even he messes up with the links. He asked me to look at one of his pages before he posted it, and one of the images didn't show up. Turns out it was referenced to "C:.....". I had a good chuckle over that. And he hand codes most of his stuff, too.
heh, coding web pages is easy. I generally reference relationally as it is easier when you are designing them, and if I must hard code I check all my links before uploading.
Anyway, XML would be good. Just make sure to include a copy of the DTD, then people can use a standard XML editor instead of messing around with text files.
One comment though: If this does go ahead, make a sort of archive format for the final plugin distribution, I hate myriads of directories, it's too windows-ish.
------------------ --blackhole (url="http://"mailto:blackhole@mac.com")mailto:blackhole@mac.com(/url)blackhole@mac.com
Originally posted by Chrestomanci: **I know a rather excellent web page designer. And even he messes up with the links. He asked me to look at one of his pages before he posted it, and one of the images didn't show up. Turns out it was referenced to "C:.....". I had a good chuckle over that. And he hand codes most of his stuff, too.
Sometimes it's easier to write a hard URL ... i've done it before to fix a Netscape bug regarding CSS, mainly that Netscape follows paths in linked CSS files relative to the page, not to the CSS file as per the standards.
Local wise, just run the site through in BBEdit's multi-file search looking for instances of "file://(n)" where n is the path to your local html directory. replace the entire string with nothing (yes, you can search and replace with nothing) to nuke the local path and leave your a relative path that works when uploaded to the server.
Originally posted by blackhole: **One comment though: If this does go ahead, make a sort of archive format for the final plugin distribution, I hate myriads of directories, it's too windows-ish. **
Just make it one of those folder packages... MacOS 9.0 already supports them, but you need to download something called "tape" to make the packages. I am not a developer, so I don't know the details, but I do know it's possible. (and so much cleaner than the way windows programs work... windows... ugh. installing quark on a win-32 machine is like watching quark get run over by a semitruck and seeing its contigent parts sprayed across the hard drive.)