On 06/08/2012 06:31 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
Ken-
Friday, June 8, 2012, 12:44:31 AM, you wrote:
I don't get out of bed in the morning without a business case.
Yeah, sometimes I have trouble getting out of bed in the morning, too.
Normally I get out of bed in the morning with a business case
Ken-
Friday, June 8, 2012, 12:44:31 AM, you wrote:
> I don't get out of bed in the morning without a business case.
Yeah, sometimes I have trouble getting out of bed in the morning, too.
--
-Mark Wieder
mwie...@ahsoftware.net
___
use-livecode mai
On 03/06/2012 18:47, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
There are many scripts to convert stacks to XML, but...
How many developers have taken the path of converting
this stack from XML to other formats?
Searching the web, I found many free and paid converters from XML
to almost every file format available
Peter Haworth wrote:
> I think I brought this up the last time this discussion surfaced,
> but I think there's benefit to be had from being to able to discern
> exactly what changes took place between two versions of a stack file
> - were any controls added/deleted or did their properties change,
I think I brought this up the last time this discussion surfaced, but I
think there's benefit to be had from being to able to discern exactly what
changes took place between two versions of a stack file - were any controls
added/deleted or did their properties change, which scripts were
added/delet
Many long years ago (about 9) I did some work for an odd person
in Edinburgh to design a stack that could be convereted to HTML at a
button click,
where it is now I really don't know.
If anyone can locate the thing it may have some, residual, value.
Richmond.
_
But it wouldn't work as a stack anymore. If all a stack consisted of were the
things in it, you could probably export to all those easily, but a stack is not
just the things, but the interaction between the things, and the things and the
user. How would you get a web version of a stack to refere
Alejandro Tejada wrote:
Richard Gaskin wrote
[snip]
Maybe, but the absence of other devs anxious to dive in to help may also
merely suggest that such a translator has limited utility to the
community.
[snip]
But LiveCode stacks are only useful when run with the LiveCode engine.
Well, that is
ct.
Al
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Converting-a-Stack-to-many-formats-starting-from-XML-tp4650197p4650370.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode
XML predates RunRev, though it's only been a standard for five years or so. But
Richard was onto the main reason why it hasn't been used to convert things to
other formats. XML just describes a way of structuring data, it doesn't specify
what that data is. Even if you take something that is high
Alejandro Tejada wrote:
I believe that the real problem is to work alone in this XML exchange
project... :-)
Maybe, but the absence of other devs anxious to dive in to help may also
merely suggest that such a translator has limited utility to the community.
After all, it's not like XML is a
t a very rewarding experience".
>
I believe that the real problem is to work alone in this XML exchange
project... :-)
Al
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Converting-a-Stack-to-many-formats-starting-from-XML-tp465019
Richmond-
Tuesday, June 5, 2012, 12:16:16 PM, you wrote:
> and rewrote each one directly in RunRev - in most cases more elegantly.
> Funnily enough, I found that by recreating
> everything in RunRev it allowed me reflect on what was rather better
> about RunRev as opposed to Visual Basic
> (apart
On 06/05/2012 09:59 PM, Mark Wieder wrote:
Alejandro Tejada writes:
You are correct. This means that no one has written such exporters.
Well, not quite. I've done conversions to and from VB and html and javascript
and whatever when I've had to. It's not a very rewarding experience and it's no
On 06/05/2012 08:35 PM, Alejandro Tejada wrote:
Hi Mark,
Mark Wieder wrote
[snip]
I've done stack-to-xml and various xml-to-stack conversions before, but
they're
*very* specific to given tasks. XML isn't a file specification, but a
data-transfer format. Just because you can write English words
Alejandro Tejada writes:
> You are correct. This means that no one has written such exporters.
Well, not quite. I've done conversions to and from VB and html and javascript
and whatever when I've had to. It's not a very rewarding experience and it's not
really scalable or transportable to other
rds using
> Cyrillic
> characters doesn't make them immediately usable in Russian.
>
You are correct. This means that no one has written such exporters.
Alejandro
--
View this message in context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Converting-a-Stack-to-many-formats-startin
Alejandro Tejada writes:
> So, my question could be stated in this form:
> Have you written a specific Stack to XML script to
> convert a stack to another file format?
Yes, but...
I've done stack-to-xml and various xml-to-stack conversions before, but they're
*very* specific to given tasks. XML
context:
http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/Converting-a-Stack-to-many-formats-starting-from-XML-tp4650197.html
Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
19 matches
Mail list logo
