On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 08:47, Gerald Bauer wrote: > Hello, > > > What benefit would this give? There is a pretty > > huge impedance mismatch > > between the two languages. > > I suggest offering an "official" alternative compact > XML UI format in addition to your current > super-verbose XML UI format. If you have a > super-compact XML UI format in the HTML-style > tradition you get lots of benefits.
Glade [the file format] and XUL are completely different things. XUL is a presentation language. Glade is an object serialization format for Gtk widgets that happens to use XML. It is not like HTML (or XUL). It's more like SVG; it's a somewhat-human-readable description of visual data, but having a super-compact simplified form of it would not be useful, because it's much easier to draw bÃzier curves in a GUI drawing program than it is to type out the control points by hand in emacs. > First, you can handcode your XML UI if you want to. > Using your super-verbose XML UI formats locks you into > Glade. Or you can use server-side scripts such as > XSL/T, PHP, Velocity and so on to create XML UIs. But there's no reason to hand code a glade file. If you want to code the UI by hand, you can just write out the Gtk calls in C (or python or whatever). The point of glade is just to be a graphical way of generating a description of the layout of a bunch of Gtk widgets. If you want it to be something other than that, then you're basically talking about a completely new app/file format. -- Dan _______________________________________________ Glade-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/glade-devel
