[Haskell-cafe] Re: Why binding to existing widget toolkits
doesn't make any sense
conal at conal.net
Tue Feb 3 12:27:46 EST 2009
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Thomas Davie <tom.davie at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3 Feb 2009, at 08:12, Achim Schneider wrote:
> "John A. De Goes" <john at n-brain.net> wrote:
>>> Perhaps I should have been more precise:
>>> How do you define "layout" and "interaction semantics" in such a way
>>> that the former has a *necessarily* direct, enormous impact on the
>>> HTML/CSS is a perfect example of how one can decouple a model of
>>> content from the presentation of that content. The developer writes
>>> the content model and the controller, while UX guys or designers get
>>> to decide how it looks.
>>> HTML, or rather XML, would be layout to me. GUI's usually don't serve
>> static content, and allowing a CSS layer to position eg. a filter GUI
>> that supports chaining up any amount of filters by slicing them apart
>> and positioning them on top of each other (maybe because someone didn't
>> notice that you can use more than one filter) wrecks havoc on both
>> usability and the semantics.
>> "Wrecks havoc on the semantics" in the sense of that if a thing is
>> editable, the semantics should guarantee that it is, indeed, editable.
>> Likewise, if something is marked as visible (and such things are
>> explicit in the model, not defined by an outer layer), the semantics
>> should guarantee that it is visible.
> I mostly don't get how a topic discussing how to do GUIs in a beautiful,
> consistent, composable, orthogonal, functional way got onto the topic of "oh
> hay, you could do it with html and css". Sure, those two may be declarative
> languages, but that doesn't make either of them fill the list of features
> required above!
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe