Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 1:16 AM -0700 10/10/2002, Scott Rossi wrote: Recently, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote: I believe it would be in your best interest as the creators of the tools to reference Rev/MC's ability to display *HTML source* and not the rendered HTML pages that folks see in a Web browser. Um... but it does render HTML, via the htmlText property. Not all of the HTML 4.0 spec, certainly, but it renders basic inline styling, images, and links. That's not enough for all purposes but it seems to me it is enough to say that Rev renders HTML on its own. Well, one of the original questions was is it just like embedding a browser on the card. Sure, Rev/MC can display HTML formatted text, and can display images referenced from a URL, but this is a far cry from displaying a rendered page layout in which the aforementioned elements appear. Fair enough. The HTML support is mostly for text styles, and anything having to do with block elements isn't going to appear in a field. Still, I think this is useful often enough that referencing only the ability to display plain text (the HTML source) misses part of the picture. I think it's a question of striking the correct balance in letting people know what is and isn't supported. -- Jeanne A. E. DeVoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Runtime Revolution Limited - The Solution for Software Development http://www.runrev.com/ ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 9:06 AM -0700 10/10/2002, Dar Scott wrote: [htmlText] (I don't understand the motivation for the current whitespace handling. It might be so get returns what you put, but I am missing the value of that.) The main initial motivation for adding the htmlText property, as I understand it, was to provide a method of storing and transporting styled text. So it's important that set the htmlText of field X to the htmlText of field Y make the text and styling of the two fields identical. -- Jeanne A. E. DeVoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Runtime Revolution Limited - The Solution for Software Development http://www.runrev.com/ ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 07:19 PM 10/10/2002 -0700, Richard Gaskin wrote: What are the advantages of putting a browser inside on your app's window? What sort of apps are you folks making? Hi Richard, Specifically, I was thinking about building a news aggregator in RR, and a true browser control would be very helpful for that. Generally, I tend to find the browser as helper app approach kinda jarring. I either like my apps to reside entirely within the browser or entirely within the desktop app. Kinda like HTML in e-mail (whose merits are dubious, I'll admit) - I'd find it very annoying to have my e-mail client fire up a separate browser window every time somebody sent me an HTML-formatted message. That's just my personal preference though. Jim ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
On Friday, October 11, 2002, at 12:43 AM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote: The main initial motivation for adding the htmlText property, as I understand it, was to provide a method of storing and transporting styled text. So it's important that set the htmlText of field X to the htmlText of field Y make the text and styling of the two fields identical. As that it is excellent! And I'm glad to get whatever HTML capability this spins off along with that for free. Dar ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 9:26 PM -0400 10/10/02, Richard Gaskin wrote: Jim Biancolo wrote: I agree that an embedded rendering engine would be a killer feature. I'v gotten so accustmed to using the browser as a helper app that I think I'm missing something: What are the advantages of putting a browser inside on your app's window? What sort of apps are you folks making? The interface in a Web browser sucks. It's too primitive and limited to real application development. But the content with which interaction takes place and the display of that content are done very well by the WEb browser's HTML rendering engine, so that's the wheel I don't want to reinvent. By way of example, I have a client for whom I've built an interactive Web site. Using this site, my client (a therapist with a unique approach to problem-solving) has *his* clients fill out some basic HTML forms to store information in a series of dynamically generated HTML documents. Then later we retrieve information from those documents to print reports for my client and his staff. Using client-side JavaScript, I could improve the UI on the Web app somewhat, but I'd still be constrained. For example, looping over a list of documents meeting some title criteria and displaying a clickable list of them is pretty hairy and gets me into some cross-browser issues I don't even like to think about. But if I could develop a custom application for my client in which the user forms are displayed in Rev and uploaded and in which the UI is a hybrid of the stand-alone app (with, if you will, a control skin) and the nicely rendered HTML information in the main pane, I'd get the best of both worlds. Now I *could* do this by developing a screen scraper or a remote database access approach. But that requires a rewrite of the program and essentially takes the browser out of the loop, something with which my client isn't comfortable. Sometimes he needs to be able to access data when he's not on his computer (where the app will presumably reside). I see lots of opportunity out there to create apps like this that display rendered and interactive HTML in a pane with supplemental controls and an improved UI embodied in the desktop app. In fact, I think this represents an important direction for software development. FWIW, I think the Mozilla engine would be absolutely the best choice for this project and it has the added advantages that it's free and open source. -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- Dan Shafer Technology Visionary - Technology Assessment - Documentation Looking at technology from every angle http://www.danshafer.com 831-392-1127 Voice - 831-401-2531 Fax ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Jim Biancolo wrote: I agree that an embedded rendering engine would be a killer feature. Embedded or higly integrated ? --snip-- Dan Shafer wrote : I see lots of opportunity out there to create apps like this that display rendered and interactive HTML in a pane with supplemental controls and an improved UI embodied in the desktop app. In fact, I think this represents an important direction for software development. Agreed, however we use multiple integrated applications on a daily basis eg spreadsheet in excel, create a graph, copy paste to word, type a few words, picture of the web and there's your report! There's no reason why you can't currently use rev as your control panel and a browser as your display mechanism with the users monitor as the pane. Regards Gary Rathbone BSc MBCS Chartered Information Systems Practitioner ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 07:38 PM 10/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: I agree that an embedded rendering engine would be a killer feature. Embedded or higly integrated ? --snip-- There's no reason why you can't currently use rev as your control panel and a browser as your display mechanism with the users monitor as the pane. I was going to ask for a better definition of the difference between embedded and highly integrated but I think based on your example I'd have to say embedded. I refer again to my e-mail client example: the model currently used in several clients is a mailbox pane, a subjects pane, and a message viewer pane. If I wanted to create such an application in RR that supported HTML mail, I don't think I could without an embeddable HTML rendering engine. Clicking on a message in the subjects pane and having it fire up an external browser would be too kludgey, IMO. But maybe this is a Windows bias . . . I'm a bit more used to having my apps self-contained. Those few times I've had the opportunity to work on Macs I've found it disconcerting to have the menu floating off detached from the working area of its application. Windows-conditioning aside, I stand by my wish: I'd love to see a cross-platform control in RR that can render any well-formed HTML thrown at it. Jim ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Jim, Clicking on a message in the subjects pane and having it fire up an external browser would be too kludgey, IMO. Personally, as long as it did what I wanted it to do, however complex, then I wouldn't really mind if it involved a number of integrated seemless apps. But maybe this is a Windows bias . . . I'm a bit more used to having my apps self-contained. Those few times I've had the opportunity to work on Macs I've found it disconcerting to have the menu floating off detached from the working area of its application. So that fact that the functional units are contained within a single window/frame/pane gives the comforting perception/illusion of an integration application ? Windows-conditioning aside, I stand by my wish: I'd love to see a cross-platform control in RR that can render any well-formed HTML thrown at it. Must admit, it would be nice ;-) Regards Gary Rathbone BSc MBCS Chartered Information Systems Practitioner ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 09:36 PM 10/11/2002 +0100, Gary Rathbone wrote: But maybe this is a Windows bias . . . I'm a bit more used to having my apps self-contained. Those few times I've had the opportunity to work on Macs I've found it disconcerting to have the menu floating off detached from the working area of its application. So that fact that the functional units are contained within a single window/frame/pane gives the comforting perception/illusion of an integration application ? I fear we're starting to stray off-topic for the list, but yeah, I find it to be a helpful visual cue. Again, might be years of conditioning talking, but I'm trying to imagine running several applications at once where the functional units are divided into discrete panes and my mind recoils. I mean, just trying to visually distinguish which panes belong to which apps when there are other panes/apps in the background would be icky. If I'm running three apps and toggling between them I'd much rather deal with three total panes than six (two each) or nine (three each). Then again, the last Mac user I visited had this monster plasma screen, so maybe it's just a question of expensive hardware screen real estate vs. cheap hardware screen real estate. I'm sure I wouldn't mind the multi-pane apps so much if I could put them in a dedicated portion of such a vast expanse of pixels. Windows-conditioning aside, I stand by my wish: I'd love to see a cross-platform control in RR that can render any well-formed HTML thrown at it. Must admit, it would be nice ;-) :-) A guy can dream, right? Jim ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 09:36 PM 10/11/2002 +0100, Gary Rathbone wrote: So that fact that the functional units are contained within a single window/frame/pane gives the comforting perception/illusion of an integration application ? I fear we're starting to stray off-topic for the list... Fair point. But when many people on this list ask for features to be included in Rev there is often another way of doing the same task. We don't request spreadsheet capability in word, cos we've got excel, and the two are compatible. It often seems to me that cos a user can't do something then they request a feature, all I'm trying to do is suggest 'reasonable alternatives'(look sidewards). I see my computer as a working unit, not each individual application. I mean, just trying to visually distinguish which panes belong to which apps when there are other panes/apps in the background would be icky. If I'm running three apps and toggling between them I'd much rather deal with three total panes than six (two each) or nine (three each). Again, fair point. But this also relates to the recent 'Conforming UI' thread on the list, so its relevant. A badly designed GUI makes even the simplist application difficult to use. So what defines a good GUI ? (rhetotical question OK !) I'd love to see a cross-platform control in RR that can render any well-formed HTML thrown at it. Must admit, it would be nice ;-) :-) A guy can dream, right? Oh yeah ! Thanks Jim, as you suggested we're straying off-topic, so I'll leave you to have the last word (if you wish...) Regards Gary Rathbone BSc MBCS Chartered Information Systems Practitioner ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 4:41 PM -0400 10/11/02, Gary Rathbone wrote: Dan Shafer wrote : I see lots of opportunity out there to create apps like this that display rendered and interactive HTML in a pane with supplemental controls and an improved UI embodied in the desktop app. In fact, I think this represents an important direction for software development. Agreed, however we use multiple integrated applications on a daily basis eg spreadsheet in excel, create a graph, copy paste to word, type a few words, picture of the web and there's your report! There's no reason why you can't currently use rev as your control panel and a browser as your display mechanism with the users monitor as the pane. I understand the use of multiple interacting applications. I just don't think the solution is elegant. Rather it seems to me have emerged from the absence of truly integrated *solutions*. Also, each time you add an app to this group, you create seams. Seams are where problems arise in applications and solutions. Users who don't have the right stuff or know how to use it can't make full use of the solution. IOW, this approach places more of a burden on the user and/or the user's system. If incorporating an HTML rendering engine were hard, I wouldn't even suggest it. But it's only a moderately difficult task and we'll be seeing tons more apps which replace the general-purpose Web Browser with specialized browsers by this very mechanism. I'd just like to see Rev be one of the tools that allows that so I can keep using it for my applications! -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- How smart do you work? What's your TQ (Time Quotient)? Find out free in 2 minutes at http://www.thinktq.com/Results2002 Free one-year training course in your email box - $120 value Get an insightful book written and published EXCLUSIVELY FOR YOU ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Dan, There's no reason why you can't currently use rev as your control panel and a browser as your display mechanism with the users monitor as the pane. I understand the use of multiple interacting applications. I just don't think the solution is elegant. Rather it seems to me have emerged from the absence of truly integrated *solutions*. Elegant, no. But powerful yes! Why reinvent the wheel when we have powerful purpose built applications which can and will interact ? If incorporating an HTML rendering engine were hard, I wouldn't even suggest it. But it's only a moderately difficult task and we'll be seeing tons more apps which replace the general-purpose Web Browser with specialized browsers by this very mechanism. But what else to include for other users with other specific tasks; image manipulations tools similar to photoshop; page layout tools similar to Quark; 3D rendering tools, the list goes on... I'd prefer Rev to be able to *talk* to these specialist tools rather than be a poor relation in an attempt to replicate and keep up with current specialist trends. I'd just like to see Rev be one of the tools that allows that so I can keep using it for my applications! I don't doubt that everyone on the list agrees with you ! Regards Gary Rathbone BSc MBCS Chartered Information Systems Practitioner ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
RE: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 11:07 PM 10/11/2002 +0100, Gary Rathbone wrote: Thanks Jim, as you suggested we're straying off-topic, so I'll leave you to have the last word (if you wish...) Thanks for the interesting thread Gary (and other participants). Having too much fun to quit now, so you can have the last word if you wish. :-) Getting back on-topic . . . Fair point. But when many people on this list ask for features to be included in Rev there is often another way of doing the same task. We don't request spreadsheet capability in word, cos we've got excel, and the two are compatible. It often seems to me that cos a user can't do something then they request a feature, all I'm trying to do is suggest 'reasonable alternatives'(look sidewards). I see my computer as a working unit, not each individual application. So really the question is whether or not an HTML renderer should be considered a fundamental component or whether it's specialized enough to be left as a separate tool, yes? I'd vote for the former. My rationale: * For better or worse, HTML seems to be the lingua franca of the web, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. Rather than give browsers a monopoly on HTML rendering, I'd like to see pretty much every application/development environment be able to render it. Indeed, I think the ability to render HTML is more noteworthy by it's absence rather than it's presence. Consider all the tools that can process it: most word processors, pretty much every Microsoft product, many e-mail clients, off-line news readers, heck there are even java applets, activeX objects and flash components that allow you to do WYSIWYG editing of HTML as a FORM INPUT so it can be passed for storage in some backend DB. * Not that everybody should rush to jump off the same bridge, but I think it is in recognition of this trend that Microsoft makes IE embeddable in Windows apps (and it's trivially easy to do so), and Mozilla makes Gecko embeddable pretty much anywhere (although I personally don't have the skills to take advantage of this). * The existence of the htmlText property is a nod in the direction of a full-fledged renderer. Why not go all the way? * Another point in this regard: from the RR What Can I Build page, item #1: Internet front ends - Create your own custom browser for your own content, offering capabilities and responsiveness you can't match with cobbled-together DHTML pages. Internet-ready Revolution makes this quick and simple, with the ability to display data from any URL (including text, HTML, pictures, video and sound) right in your application windows, perform POST and GET operations with a single command, and use sockets for direct communication with an Internet host. Only one major component missing! :-) Take care, Jim (who probably won't be back online until Tuesday, so you really can have the last word :-) ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
At 7:48 PM -0700 10/9/2002, Scott Rossi wrote: I've seen the Can I view HTML pages in Rev/MC? questions come up time and again on the Rev and MC lists, and perhaps it's just me, but it seems that the answers given often skirt the intent of the original question. IMO, it would be more useful for new users to be told directly that Rev/MC does *not* provide an embedded Web browser, nor does it render HTML on its own. I believe it would be in your best interest as the creators of the tools to reference Rev/MC's ability to display *HTML source* and not the rendered HTML pages that folks see in a Web browser. Um... but it does render HTML, via the htmlText property. Not all of the HTML 4.0 spec, certainly, but it renders basic inline styling, images, and links. That's not enough for all purposes but it seems to me it is enough to say that Rev renders HTML on its own. -- Jeanne A. E. DeVoto ~ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Runtime Revolution Limited - The Solution for Software Development http://www.runrev.com/ ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Recently, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote: I've seen the Can I view HTML pages in Rev/MC? questions come up time and again on the Rev and MC lists, and perhaps it's just me, but it seems that the answers given often skirt the intent of the original question. IMO, it would be more useful for new users to be told directly that Rev/MC does *not* provide an embedded Web browser, nor does it render HTML on its own. I believe it would be in your best interest as the creators of the tools to reference Rev/MC's ability to display *HTML source* and not the rendered HTML pages that folks see in a Web browser. Um... but it does render HTML, via the htmlText property. Not all of the HTML 4.0 spec, certainly, but it renders basic inline styling, images, and links. That's not enough for all purposes but it seems to me it is enough to say that Rev renders HTML on its own. Well, one of the original questions was is it just like embedding a browser on the card. Sure, Rev/MC can display HTML formatted text, and can display images referenced from a URL, but this is a far cry from displaying a rendered page layout in which the aforementioned elements appear. And if one needs to display tables, background images, frames, javascript and the plethora of other features that define the HTML/browser experience, it would seem the claim renders HTML on its own is something of a stretch. Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.tactilemedia.com ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 12:38 AM, Jeanne A. E. DeVoto wrote: Um... but it does render HTML, via the htmlText property. Not all of the HTML 4.0 spec, certainly, but it renders basic inline styling, images, and links. That's not enough for all purposes but it seems to me it is enough to say that Rev renders HTML on its own. That's better than what I thought. I thought images and links required some special coding. Even so, the htmlText does not even handle basic whitespace rules. (The way I remember them.) This means even rendering the most simple of HTML requires some processing. When Revolution can do that, I might concede that it can render basic HTML. Until then, the better name for htmlText is styledText. (I don't understand the motivation for the current whitespace handling. It might be so get returns what you put, but I am missing the value of that.) Dar Scott ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
I differ slightly with you here, Jeanne. I think it is fine to say something like Rev renders a sub-set of HTML on its own, but even the way it doesn't handle links (which is so easy in Rev that it's obvious it could be fixed if there were a priority here) demonstrates that support is really, really weak. Candidly, I'd like to see Rev tie up with someone like OmniWeb or iCab or Opera or someone, license a decent HTML rendering engine, slam it in the product (or offer it as a plug-in add-on) and let me get down to building some REAL Web apps without my having to muck with the HTML at all. But that's just me. :-) At 2:30 AM -0400 10/10/02, Jeanne DeVoto wrote: Um... but it does render HTML, via the htmlText property. Not all of the HTML 4.0 spec, certainly, but it renders basic inline styling, images, and links. That's not enough for all purposes but it seems to me it is enough to say that Rev renders HTML on its own. -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- How smart do you work? What's your TQ (Time Quotient)? Find out free in 2 minutes at http://www.thinktq.com/Results2002 Free one-year training course in your email box - $120 value Get an insightful book written and published EXCLUSIVELY FOR YOU ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
In a message dated 10/10/02 8:10:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Candidly, I'd like to see Rev tie up with someone like OmniWeb or iCab or Opera or someone, license a decent HTML rendering engine, slam it in the product (or offer it as a plug-in add-on) and let me get down to building some REAL Web apps without my having to muck with the HTML at all. But that's just me. I'd pay another $300 for just that feature alone - - - would OmiWeb or iCab or Opera be able to work cross-platform, so I could create a Revolution app with an embedded browser - - - authoring it once, and building it for both Mac and Windows?
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
I agree that an embedded rendering engine would be a killer feature. I have no experience with such integration work, but Gecko (Mozilla's rendering engine) might be a good choice for this: http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/ There's a Gecko Embedding Overview here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/embedding/embedoverview/EmbeddingBasics.html I *think* the licensing might allow for some forms of commercial distribution as well, but don't take my word for it; I only have a vague recollection or reading some legalese that I really didn't understand. :-) Jim At 09:21 PM 10/10/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd pay another $300 for just that feature alone - - - would OmiWeb or iCab or Opera be able to work cross-platform, so I could create a Revolution app with an embedded browser - - - authoring it once, and building it for both Mac and Windows? ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Jim Biancolo wrote: I agree that an embedded rendering engine would be a killer feature. I'v gotten so accustmed to using the browser as a helper app that I think I'm missing something: What are the advantages of putting a browser inside on your app's window? What sort of apps are you folks making? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Custom Software and Web Development for All Major Platforms Developer of WebMerge 2.0: Publish any database on any site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
In a message dated 10/10/02 10:20:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are the advantages of putting a browser inside on your app's window? What sort of apps are you folks making? Well, I can speak for the app that I'm trying to make - - - a DSL Router configuration tool. Revolution presently launches IE in my app which takes the user to the ISP's registration server, and has them put in all their credit card data and so forth via a secure connection. This goes on for a couple of pages. Then on the last page of registration, they get a new username/password. This username password then needs to get routed back to Revolution from IE and passed back to the DSL Router via HTTP Post through port 80. I'm able to do all of this by kludging together Applescript calls and Revolution calls, however it would be MUCH cooler if I could have the browser embedded in Revolution, so then I could sniff for the html of the username password right from within Revolution instead of relying on Applescript to do all the legwork of capturing the html source of that last page and passing variable-data back to Revolution. The reason I can't do it presently in Revolution is because the html rendering isn't displaying properly with all the tables they have, and I'd need security with e-commerce send-form data. If Revolution could have it's embedded browser that would work on both Mac and PC, then my registration app would be cross platform. I also wouldn't have to do the checks for the presence of IE or installing of IE. I'd gladly pay extra for this feature. Macromedia Director can't do this presently either, but I know it's in high demand. I'm happy with Revolution now, but I'd be even happier of it could embed a browser.
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/10/02 10:20:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are the advantages of putting a browser inside on your app's window? What sort of apps are you folks making? Well, I can speak for the app that I'm trying to make - - - a DSL Router configuration tool. Revolution presently launches IE in my app which takes the user to the ISP's registration server, and has them put in all their credit card data and so forth via a secure connection. This goes on for a couple of pages. Then on the last page of registration, they get a new username/password. This username password then needs to get routed back to Revolution from IE and passed back to the DSL Router via HTTP Post through port 80. I'm able to do all of this by kludging together Applescript calls and Revolution calls, however it would be MUCH cooler if I could have the browser embedded in Revolution, so then I could sniff for the html of the username password right from within Revolution instead of relying on Applescript to do all the legwork of capturing the html source of that last page and passing variable-data back to Revolution. The reason I can't do it presently in Revolution is because the html rendering isn't displaying properly with all the tables they have, and I'd need security with e-commerce send-form data. If Revolution could have it's embedded browser that would work on both Mac and PC, then my registration app would be cross platform. I also wouldn't have to do the checks for the presence of IE or installing of IE. I'd gladly pay extra for this feature. Macromedia Director can't do this presently either, but I know it's in high demand. I'm happy with Revolution now, but I'd be even happier of it could embed a browser. Sounds like the critical component is not HTML rendering as much as HTTPS -- did I understand that correctly? -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation Custom Software and Web Development for All Major Platforms Developer of WebMerge 2.0: Publish any database on any site ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com Tel: 323-225-3717 AIM: FourthWorldInc ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
--- Richard Gaskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 10/10/02 10:20:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What are the advantages of putting a browser inside on your app's window? What sort of apps are you folks making? Well, I can speak for the app that I'm trying to make - - - a DSL Router configuration tool. [snip] Sounds like the critical component is not HTML rendering as much as HTTPS -- did I understand that correctly? -- Richard Gaskin It might also help if those servers supported the SOAP protocol, so you're not forced to make the user enter data inside the browser, but could provide the forms within your applicaion and send _that_ data over to the server. Through HTTPS, of course ; but at least you wouldbn't need a browser environment. Just my two euro-cents, Jan Schenkel. = As we grow older, we grow both wiser and more foolish at the same time. (La Rochefoucauld) __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
This sounds like a great idea - - however I must be doing something wrong. If I go into the messagebox and type: put URL "http://www.runrev.com/index.html" into temp put "temp = " temp I get no results. I tried a bunch of other URLs like (http://www.apple.com) and didn't get anything either. I'm definetely connected to the network, as I'm able to send out this email message on AOL. (Perhaps AOL's the problem - - - I'm on dialup). I'm on Mac OS X, (Jaguar). I'm in authoring mode, so I would think I'd have all the internet tools available, right? When I do get this working, will I be able to have the user click on the hyperlinks displayed on the web-page that's displayed as HTML in that field? In other words, is it just like embedding a browser on the card, or is this just a means of displaying a page to the user, but they can't click on hyperlinks. If this does let me treat that field like an actual browser, with clickable hyperlinks, I will be extremely impressed with Revolution. - Rob In a message dated 10/9/02 6:11:32 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Forget using Explorer (or any browser). Rev can retrieve the html page all by itself and put it in a variable or field for you to parse. This gives you a cross-platform system that doesn't rely on your user's having any other software installed. put URL "http://www.runrev.com/index.html" into field "Download" This is the basic syntax. You can also use "load URL" to download the page in advance for quicker access. Don't forget that fields can display basic html: set the htmlText of field "Display" to field "Download"
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Are you using the multiline message box? It's probably best to try it from a button. That way you can be sure all the steps are being used. You can embed clickable hyperlinks in any field. Enter your test, set it's style to Link and there it is. To do something with it, you need a linkClicked handler in the field, which can do various things with the link. on linkClicked theLink -- open the default browser and show the selected link revGoURL theLink -- opens the default emailer and creates a new email to the linked address (Mac only) revGoURL (matilto: theLink) -- loads the web page and displays internally put URL theLink into me set the htmlText of me to me -- if the web page uses relative addressing, you may need to add the root address first -- e.g. put URL (http://www.runrev.com/; theLink) into me end linkClicked Sarah On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 11:44 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This sounds like a great idea - - however I must be doing something wrong. If I go into the messagebox and type: put URL http://www.runrev.com/index.html; into temp put temp = temp I get no results. I tried a bunch of other URLs like (http://www.apple.com) and didn't get anything either. I'm definetely connected to the network, as I'm able to send out this email message on AOL. (Perhaps AOL's the problem - - - I'm on dialup). I'm on Mac OS X, (Jaguar). I'm in authoring mode, so I would think I'd have all the internet tools available, right? When I do get this working, will I be able to have the user click on the hyperlinks displayed on the web-page that's displayed as HTML in that field? In other words, is it just like embedding a browser on the card, or is this just a means of displaying a page to the user, but they can't click on hyperlinks. If this does let me treat that field like an actual browser, with clickable hyperlinks, I will be extremely impressed with Revolution. ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: How real is the embedded web-page technique?
Recently, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This sounds like a great idea - - however I must be doing something wrong. If I go into the messagebox and type: put URL http://www.runrev.com/index.html; into temp put temp = temp I get no results. I tried a bunch of other URLs like (http://www.apple.com) and didn't get anything either. I'm definetely connected to the network, as I'm able to send out this email message on AOL. (Perhaps AOL's the problem - - - I'm on dialup). I'm on Mac OS X, (Jaguar). I'm in authoring mode, so I would think I'd have all the internet tools available, right? When I do get this working, will I be able to have the user click on the hyperlinks displayed on the web-page that's displayed as HTML in that field? In other words, is it just like embedding a browser on the card, or is this just a means of displaying a page to the user, but they can't click on hyperlinks. If this does let me treat that field like an actual browser, with clickable hyperlinks, I will be extremely impressed with Revolution. This doesn't put *rendered* HTML in a field -- the HTML source of the URL is placed there, and it's up to you to decide if/how you want to parse it for links, etc. Doing this is definitely possible, but depending on the complexity of the HTML, it may or may not be a trivial job. Note for Rev/MC teams: I've seen the Can I view HTML pages in Rev/MC? questions come up time and again on the Rev and MC lists, and perhaps it's just me, but it seems that the answers given often skirt the intent of the original question. IMO, it would be more useful for new users to be told directly that Rev/MC does *not* provide an embedded Web browser, nor does it render HTML on its own. I believe it would be in your best interest as the creators of the tools to reference Rev/MC's ability to display *HTML source* and not the rendered HTML pages that folks see in a Web browser. Two cents... Regards, Scott Rossi Creative Director Tactile Media, Multimedia Design Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: www.tactilemedia.com ___ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
