Home | Reviews | GUIpedia | Forum | Fun500

SonicBritClarification on QML Spec
For any URL must it be in the complete format, or is a file name enough? Also with the includes do you want any checks in to make sure that an included file isn't included twice? And lastly with Forms, Input boxes normally expand to the rest of the line? and is there a submit button? and what should it be titled (just submit or..?)		2009-05-047:00 PM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
URLs must be absolute. Includes, you can have as many as you want on a page. I guess inclusion would be recursive with the QML include but I haven't though about it. Forms, according to spec I think it's supposed to go the rest of the line but most people make it shorter. Submit button should just be submit or whatever you want to call it. It's not named anywhere in the page source.		2009-05-048:19 PM
trollyRe:Clarification on QML Spec
recursive embedding the page could be done easyly,... but you must do a control of the embedded page: if a page A embedd a page B, this page B should NOT embedd the page A again, else you will have a sort of "fork bomb", an infinite recursion that will overflow the stack and crash the program		2009-05-056:27 AM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
Yeah... Best not to do too much embedding on your site in general. If you want to embed a lot, your best bet right now would be to use PHP or SSI to do it, because most QML readers don't support embedding as well as you'd hope.		2009-05-057:07 AM
ToddRe:Clarification on QML Spec
Speaking of QML specs, I was working on specs for QML2 (with table support) which implements the similar syntax but isn't strictly line-per-line interpreted.		2009-05-0510:33 AM
ksrRe:Clarification on QML Spec
[b]tlsuess wrote:[/b] [quote]Speaking of QML specs, I was working on specs for QML2 (with table support) which implements the similar syntax but isn't strictly line-per-line interpreted.[/quote] But is it backwards-compatible with QML 1?		2009-05-0511:55 AM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
- Todd Don't call it QML if it's a different language...		2009-05-0512:50 PM
ToddRe:Clarification on QML Spec
It's not. The only major difference is that multiple links can be fit on one line and there's table support.		2009-05-059:54 PM
SonicBritRe:Clarification on QML Spec
so your doing a microsoft embrace/extend approach :P (i'm joking not meaning to be rude or anything) Table support would be good, but you might want to pre-define the column size or something, because with HTML it basically waits until the table is fully loaded before it calculates column/row sizes. Something that might overly complicate the processes, not that its hard, you basically have to keep track of the maximum size used in a given row/col, and accommodate it, but something nice to forget about too. Also this can technically be shoved onto the process building the page too. (I'm concocting something to demonstrate this.) Also with regards to overloading the same line with links, I think the purpose of QML was that each line did its own thing, you could think of instead of tags, the newline is the tag separator. I do think though forms might need to be extended to include other controls, such as radio, check and extend the text input with a password box. That being said its a fairly simple spec and provided I can get VB and my implementation to work it should function as designed.		2009-05-0510:10 PM
ToddRe:Clarification on QML Spec
I guess I was just thinking outside the box. :P I don't want to turn it into an M$ product and butcher a simple program. I mean W3C changed many HTML specs.		2009-05-0612:15 AM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
1. Multiple links can already be on one line (look at Brandon's homepage). 2. Read the section about the HSPAN tag. It's designed for mult-column layouts (like what you might use tables for). I just didn't make a tag specifically for tabular data because I figured since it's all monospaced ASCII you can use tabs/spaces for that kind of thing. The widths of HPANES are pre-determined (like Trolly suggested). I was planning on adding more form elements (multi line input, checkboxes, etc...) but I don't want to get ahead of myself writing specs. It's relatively easy to write a QML specification, but as we see with the 1.x versions (which still aren't fully supported), it's tough to implement them. I think for 2, if we ever get there, I'll try to balance out new features with cutting out useless tings like the anchor tag that nobody uses.		2009-05-066:54 AM
ToddRe:Clarification on QML Spec
One interesting feature that would be neat to implement would be frames.		2009-05-063:01 PM
BrandonRe:Clarification on QML Spec
FRAMES!!??? Are you high? Frames suck. :)		2009-05-064:26 PM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
I've thought up a whole host of different ideas to add, everything from client side scripting to encryption. But I think that the real strength of QML lies in its simplicity and ease of implementation. Right now we have QML embed and text file embed tags,which were added to provide a sort of "frames light" functionality, though I'll be the first to admit that they don't allow you to do cool dynamic stuff like iframes do. The issue is that, even with only two simple embed tags, support is still far from universal. I think you should try writing a QML reader, it's an interesting experience and there are a bunch of things we can do with the current version of QML that have not been explored yet. Copy and paste, for one. Extensions (like Firefox has), etc... (Just don't add your own non-standard tags). Also there needs to be more content, I'm still the main webmaster in quickspace, which seems odd to me. Right now I'm focusing on server side things we could do, but some are beyond me. I wanted to make a simple webmail client, but I had to give that up. Right now I'm working on the news.feedable.com site, then some of the other QML projects I mentioned in the poll (which you should all take if you haven't, btw).		2009-05-064:42 PM
ToddRe:Clarification on QML Spec
[b]Brandon wrote:[/b] [quote]FRAMES!!??? Are you high? Frames suck. :)[/quote] Yeah they do suck but they can be used effectively like Pharoah said. I hate it when people use them so excessively like on cheap websites made in FrontPage. :P		2009-05-064:47 PM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
Well, with frames (for example), you could have a chat where only the actual post part auto refreshed. And you could display that on the same page with another frame that has a constantly updated RSS feed view or something. That'd be the advantage I see.		2009-05-065:06 PM
BrandonRe:Clarification on QML Spec
Make a browser that has tiling built in, it would have the same or similar benefits, and would keep the spec simple.		2009-05-065:41 PM
pharoahRe:Clarification on QML Spec
I don't think that's what he's going for. With frames, the component frame URLs are specified in the code. That reminds me, though, there's no tabbed QML reader yet. It wouldn't be that useful anyway, though, BECAUSE THERE AREN'T ENOUGH PAGES!		2009-05-065:52 PM

Other

2021 Brandon Cornell