Fwd: Re: tigert's mockups and HTML
rodrigo at gnome-db.org
Thu Sep 23 13:48:14 EEST 2004
On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 02:30 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 13:19 +0300, Tuomas Kuosmanen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 14:24 -0400, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > > The entire toolkit can be abused. We live with just having a HIG and
> > > admonishing developers that make fugly/unusable apps. Given that
> > > HTML/images _can_ be used for some impressive notifications that not
> > > only are pretty, but also packed with useful and relevant information,
> > > it seems a shame to ban them just because some developers may be
> > > tasteless or incompetent.
> > Yeah, this is exactly my point. Just because the spec allows you to eat
> > as many burritos as you can for a fixed price does not mean you should.
> > But it would be just silly to try to restrict developers by making a
> > spec that does not allow anything. That causes people to just reinvent
> > the wheel with the fancy chromed hubcaps themselves.. :
> So which spec are we to specify? HTML 4.0? XHTML 1.1? Which level of
> CSS is going to be required? By passing the buck and saying "we support
> HTML" (which nobody will), you'd be creating the same guess-and-check
> crap that web developers deal with. Application developers will have to
> check to see how their HTMl renders in GNOME, and how it renders in KDE,
> etc. Because there will be differences.
I guess HTML could be used as an extension property. That is, apps could
send HTML to the notification daemon, and that HTML could be shown, when
supported by the application displaying the notifications.
But we still want to have notifications from simpler apps, that just
sent a summary and short description in plain text.
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo at gnome-db.org>
More information about the xdg