We're moving towards keeping just one messages file checked into version
control that contains all messages for all front end and language
combinations, and then split things up at build time. This should both
help to keep languages in sync as well as reduce the amount of messages
data each front end has to load. (ie, there's a lot of GTK- and RISC
OS-specific stuff in there at the moment.)
There is now netsurf/resources/FatMessages, which is processed by
netsurf/utils/split-messages.pl, which can be called like this:
./utils/split-messages.pl en gtk < resources/FatMessages
This will output to stdout all the messages that are relevent to the GTK
front end in English. 'fr ro' for French RISC OS, 'nl ami' for Dutch
Messages with a platform 'all' get emitted for all platforms. And
here's the problem. I managed to automate the appropriate tagging of
platform-specific messages for some things (such as the GTK messages, or
RISC OS interactive help), but a lot of stuff isn't namespaced
Can people please go through netsurf/resources/FatMessages and change
the prefixes appropriately if they know a message is used only by a
specific front end. For example, there's a lot of stuff there that
looks like it's only used by the RISC OS front end for its menu
construction, but I don't know if some other platform makes use of them.
(I suppose we could always suck it and see.)
I just noticed, one day after fixing the BeOS build, that r13573 broke
Of course, since I use the top-level Makefile, it's wasn't even built
nor installed, so it was missing the headers. I added it as r13574.
Now I'll have to fix libdom itself, I guess I'll spend quite some time.
I'll try to make a Haiku cross-compiler to make it easier for others to
test builds, but it would have been nice to tell beforehand about that.
For now it's complaining about "ANSI does not permit the keyword
'inline'", and of course not finding libxml2...
I'm looking for ideas for my development team
Is it possible to use css in objective c. The purpose is to build templates
applications for iphone where we can easily modify the code to have changes
done in the colors, etc.
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 11:29:47AM -0000, Robin Edwards wrote:
> Dear Steve,
My name is not Steve. But Steve's is. :)
> We are intending to run a Show again this year, and so need to get an idea of
> how many people/groups wish to have a Stand.
> Here are the vital details:-
> The 2012 Midland's RISC OS Show is in the same place as last year, St John's
> Hall, Kenilworth.
> The date is Saturday 7th July. The show opens at 11.00 and closes at 4.00.
> Exhibitors can access the hall from 9.00. Tables cost £10 each.
> Full up-to-date details are on the MUG website at:-
> So that we can get some idea of numbers, would you please reply fairly soon
> Yes - I will come
> No - I will not be coming
> Maybe - I am not able to decide yet
> If the answer is yes, would you also say how many tables you might like.
> Thanks! We look forward to seeing you there.
As usual, the show is perilously close to my birthday, and I'd rather
don't know if I'll be able to make it. I have CCed the developer list
in case anybody else is available.
> Please do not repeat your point any further, either of you. This
> discussion is a waste of bits.
rob: with respect, that is your opinion. and, with respect: i am
compelled from experience to point out that your opinion tells me that
you simply do not have any experience in the scale or scope of the
task that you are facing.
with respect: you are failing in your duty of care and responsibility
to the netsurf community if you do not fully comprehend the various
options out there, and have "dismissed them" for any undocumented and
there are damn good reasons why Common Object Models are deployed for
the purpose described, and you have not even _begun_ to describe any
technical reasons - of any kind! - as to why you are dismissing the
options being presented.
should you wish to develop netsurf entirely "in secret" behind closed
doors please feel free to do so but should you choose to do so please
actually state on the web site "external technical input from
experienced software developers is not welcome in this project".
i trust that this is not the kind of image that the netsurf project
wishes to present to the outside world.
> NetSurf will almost certainly never rely
> on a heavyweight tricky-to-port fat library such as any of the Glib
> family, or anything else like that. If we need something as you
> suggest, it will probably be our own, and not just because of NIH
> syndrome, but because we have special requirements.
1) where may a list of the special requirements be found, such that i
may review them and thus focus spending my personal free time and
personal funds aiding and assisting the users of netsurf more
2) with respect: why did you not raise this earlier rather than
letting us spend large amounts of time discuss matters which in your
opinion are "a waste of time"?
3) to dismiss existing Common Object Models in general as
"heavyweight" is pure foolishness, rob. and is disrespectful towards
people who wish to aid and assist the netsurf community.
3) have you done a full technical evaluation of the amount of code
that is likely to be generated by "rolling your own" Common Object
Model or Code-Generator?
4) the discussion is not limited to gobject. as part of the
discussion, a number of alternative COM-inspired technologies were
found, many of which were designed with embedded systems in mind.
have you evaluated those technologies?
i actually *know* what you're facing, rob, to achieve the goal. it is
simply - without fail an absolute undeniable 100% cast iron guaranteed
inescapable fact that you are either a) *GOING* to have to use or
write a Common Object Model system, or a Code-Generator.
* a code-generator *will* add hundreds of thousands of lines of code
to the netsurf project. this is an inescapable undeniable fact.
* writing your own Common Object Model *will* take you something like
an entire man-year to write and get right.
the question is: is it _really_ worth it, and, once the task has been
completed, are you *absolutely* sure that it will result in
"fulfilling the special requirements" (*1), by virtue of you having
done a full and comprehensive analysis of the execution speed, memory
usage and binary object size?
(*1 which you didn't actually list. or take the time to point anyone
towards a document which describes them.)
i have absolutely no doubt that should the netsurf team choose the
route of "rolling their own", it will be one of the most superb free
software COM systems in existence (i know the professional and
technical experience of the netsurf developers is exceptionally high).
should the netsurf team choose that route, i look forward to being
able to take that excellent software (libre) licensed code so
developed in order to utilise it in other projects, and i most
certainly will evaluate it and advocate it right across the board in
other forums which could benefit from the work done.
i've just learned of the existence of netsurf, and am very excited to
hear of it. i've just tried running it, and i'm ... surprised by its
level of functionality. i say surprised because it's well below most
peoples' radar, and at the same time is damn good! perplexing...
anyway, the reason i'm writing is because, as the lead developer of
the pyjamas and pyjamas-desktop project i need to be able to give pyjd
users more (and easier to install) options. they're simply not c/c++
programmers: they're all python programmers. the windows users are
well served by COM bindings to MSHTML (Trident) - ironically it's the
free software developers that are suffering.
so in 2008 i did the python bindings for webkit (two versions, one of
which was based on gobject with followup auto-generated python
bindings using python-gobject's codegen). pyjamas-desktop has been
using both xulrunner and MSHTML successfully... for a given definition
anyway, all of the free software options are deeply unsatisfactory,
hence the reason why i was so excited to hear about netsurf.
some clarification about what i would like to achieve, and what's needed:
* what is NOT needed is "script language=python". pyjamas-desktop
does NOT revolve around embedding of python *into* the web browser dot
* i need to take netsurf-gtk and turn it into libnetsurf-gtk, followed
then by turning it into python-libnetsurf-gtk
* added to that, it must then be possible to gain access to the DOM
functions (from python. all of them).
in other words, the core drawing engine is embedded into a full-screen
single-use window (no "URL bar", no menus, no back button, nothing)
and then python is given access to the drawing engine's DOM handle.
an example write-up of how it all works, in the xulrunner case, is
anyway, i'm curious as to how far along the netsurf project is to
being hackable in order to use it for python-embedded purposes like
this. rather than swamp this list with something that may be utterly
boring to most people i've written it up here:
much of the experiences described in that draft document are based on
having worked with IDL compilers and Common Object Model Technologies
in samba, wine, webkit and firefox.
the bottom line is that if you have the (ultimate) goal of adding
it in such a way that other languages can play nice, too.
thoughts greatly appreciated.
>> * microsoft silverlight. this one *does* allow interaction with the DOM,
>> and it has resulted in things like iron ruby and iron python gaining
>> access to the DOM, and enabling "script language=xyz". unfortunately, it's
>> IE only - i'd hate to rate anyone's chances of getting this to work under
>> wine with Mono.
> IE only? What's the Silverlight plugin in Firefox for then?
jeremy, hi, thank you for prompting me to do some research. yeah,
you're right: there's a moonlight plugin for linux users on firefox.