 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible escreveu:
> There are several snags along the way, however.
>
> First, I was using the w3schools DOM reference, which helpfully omits
> several utterly critical API calls. For example:
>
> http://www.w3schools.com/jsref/dom_obj_document.asp
>
> Note how there's absolutely no mention of createElement() and friends.
> You're really not going to get very far without that. (!)
of course, if you want the spec, you need to go to the source over at
w3.org. I gave you a link to the DOM spec already some time ago...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
pretty friggin' cool web application, dude! IE users won't see it
though. Hopefully, some day this kind of open web techs mashup will be
the rule indeed, rather than some html to load a Flash object...
Should have your name there somewhere, possibly in the header, meta tag...
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron escreveu:
> Le 15/10/2010 11:20, Invisible a écrit :
>
>>> It would be more interesting if instead of javascript, you used xsl
>>> referenced in the xhtml to produce the svg.
>> Uh... what would you use that for?
>
> I do not know, but it would be more elegant to have xml processing xml
> to produce xml.
even more elegant would have lisp processing s-expressions to produce
xml... ;)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escreveu:
> Invisible wrote:
>> but only textual. Not graphical.
>
> You might want to google "html5 canvas". It's all the rage now, and
> will probably mean svg becomes a getto
html5 canvas is for bitmap drawing. Vector drawing with SVG will be as
much of a getto as Adobe Illustrator is next to Photoshop...
you're only annoyed that IE never got around at implementing it...
BTW, vector graphics vs bitmap graphics remind me of functional vs
imperative programming: in bitmap, you have global state (the canvas)
which is directly modified each time an operation occurs; in vector
drawing, the canvas is updated (evaluated) by the result of the
(out-of-order) evaluation of element-drawing functions.
Imperative, somehow, is much more popular than functional style, despite
not (automatically) allowing for undo, reproduceability (??) and
non-destructive editing. My guess is that such features in software
like Gimp and Photoshop are basically a twisted realization of
"Greenspun's tenth rule":
"Any sufficiently complicated imperative program contains an ad hoc,
informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of the
features of a functional program."
This preference seems to go well even among artists!, who would guess? :p
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude! IE users won't see it
> though.
That's what makes it so good.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/10/2010 06:29 PM, nemesis wrote:
> of course, if you want the spec, you need to go to the source over at
> w3.org.
Yes. I was eventually forced to do this. Which is a shame, because the
W3C spec for most XML-related things is utterly incomprehensible (and
mostly devoid of examples).
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude! IE users won't see it
>> though.
>
> That's what makes it so good.
+1
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> OK, so here is what I've made so far. All 9KB of hand-typed source
>> code. Mental, eh?
>
> 300 lines. Now do you agree that 600 lines of C would be considered
> trivial? :-)
After the hours of development work I put into this? How dare you
suggest such a... oh, alright then. ;-)
I think a more rigorous conclusion would be "LoC is a really vague way
to measure 'complexity'", but we knew that already...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/10/2010 07:25 PM, nemesis wrote:
> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude!
Meh, I try.
It'll be "pretty friggin' cool" when it actually shows the tree
construction steps, takes the original input, compresses it, neatly
prints out the result, and tells you how many bits you just saved...
As I say, I've written many little demos like this. But it looks so much
better with real graphics rather than crude ASCII art. (!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 escreveu:
> On 15/10/2010 07:25 PM, nemesis wrote:
>> pretty friggin' cool web application, dude!
>
> Meh, I try.
>
> It'll be "pretty friggin' cool" when it actually shows the tree
> construction steps, takes the original input, compresses it, neatly
> prints out the result, and tells you how many bits you just saved...
for now, just being able to show the whole tree would be great: for as
small as 2 paragraphs of text, the container clips the diagram and
you're not able to see the whole tree. Redimensioning the container or
scroll bars would be nice... :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
