qooxdoo trouble
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Abstractions
Next: have you read emacs manual cover to cover?; (was Do we need a "Stevens" book?)
From: Kenneth Tilton on 30 Jul 2010 22:55 re the "blank" keys issue Mr. Streater reported, I have had another such report with screenshot and now notice a telltale pixel at the very top of the buttons. This is my unresolved issue with getting positioning info from jsMath so I can accurately position those things within qooxdoo widgets: the character is there, it's just positioned outside the widget. Hmmm. Maybe this is a qooxdoo issue. They have an Html widget for raw HTML. Seems to me it should accept responsibility for displaying all the HTML absent any misguided directives from moi-self. dig dig dig.... kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: David Mark on 31 Jul 2010 03:42 On Jul 30, 10:55 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > re the "blank" keys issue Mr. Streater reported, I have had another such > report with screenshot and now notice a telltale pixel at the very top > of the buttons. Oops, trouble in "paradise". :) > This is my unresolved issue with getting positioning > info from jsMath so I can accurately position those things within > qooxdoo widgets: the character is there, it's just positioned outside > the widget. Ah, that's a shame. If only you'd use real buttons. > > Hmmm. Maybe this is a qooxdoo issue. Very likely suspect. > They have an Html widget for raw > HTML. Again with that. Why would you use an "HTML widget" to write HTML. The very idea is mind-boggling. Do they also have a "CSS widget" and a "JS widget"? > Seems to me it should accept responsibility for displaying all the > HTML absent any misguided directives from moi-self. Seems to me that you have abdicated responsibility for tasks that you don't know how to do to others who are also without a clue. That's certainly misguided (but a popular approach in Web development). > > dig dig dig.... You'll be in China before this is over. :) And enough with the qooxdoo diary entries. They are obviously of no interest to this group.
From: Kenneth Tilton on 31 Jul 2010 06:39 David Mark wrote: > On Jul 30, 10:55 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> re the "blank" keys issue Mr. Streater reported, I have had another such >> report with screenshot and now notice a telltale pixel at the very top >> of the buttons. > > Oops, trouble in "paradise". :) Yes, I am ruined. All is lost*. I thought this would make you happy, which is why I shared it. * Not. > >> This is my unresolved issue with getting positioning >> info from jsMath so I can accurately position those things within >> qooxdoo widgets: the character is there, it's just positioned outside >> the widget. > > Ah, that's a shame. If only you'd use real buttons. Actually, I think this is exactly /why/ I am not writing my own html. But to use jsMath I will have to make it work within the qooxdoo framework. Pray for me. > >> Hmmm. Maybe this is a qooxdoo issue. > > Very likely suspect. I'll be sure to report back (as if you had any doubt). > >> They have an Html widget for raw >> HTML. > > Again with that. Why would you use an "HTML widget" to write HTML. > The very idea is mind-boggling. Do they also have a "CSS widget" and > a "JS widget"? What is mind-boggling is your density. Move over, osmium! Aside from qooxdoo's speed and quality, its big win is that one need not do html/css. Unless of course one wants to, in which case one trots out the qx.ui.embed.Html widget. My guess (based on inspection of jsMath-generated html is that, for things with interesting vertical positioning issues such as fractions, jsMath is positioning stuff at a negative vertical offset (if up is negative in html-land) and the qooxdoo widget is not allowing that. But I /am/ guessing. > >> Seems to me it should accept responsibility for displaying all the >> HTML absent any misguided directives from moi-self. > > Seems to me that you have abdicated responsibility for tasks that you > don't know how to do to others who are also without a clue. That's > certainly misguided (but a popular approach in Web development). You say "abdicate", I say "standing on the shoulders". As for "without a clue", they have done a lot more with JS than you have based on your two sites. You might want to take a break from Usenet and write some more code, maybe you could have me as a user some day. > >> dig dig dig.... > > You'll be in China before this is over. :) > > And enough with the qooxdoo diary entries. They are obviously of no > interest to this group. Sorry, I did not realize this was your newsgroup... hang on... kt -- http://www.stuckonalgebra.com "The best Algebra tutorial program I have seen... in a class by itself." Macworld
From: David Mark on 31 Jul 2010 08:04 On Jul 31, 6:39 am, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > David Mark wrote: > > On Jul 30, 10:55 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> re the "blank" keys issue Mr. Streater reported, I have had another such > >> report with screenshot and now notice a telltale pixel at the very top > >> of the buttons. > > > Oops, trouble in "paradise". :) > > Yes, I am ruined. All is lost*. I thought this would make you happy, > which is why I shared it. > Yes, well that's a shame. But if you think my smileys mean that I'm happy about something, you are mistaken. JFTR, my smiley's, frownies, winkies, etc. are usually meaningless mockery. Filter them out and the full meaning of the prose should still be clear to all but the uninitiated. However the lack of a smiley after a joke or ironic comment is one of my favored devices. I can't understand why the typical Usenet denizen is confused by my stuff. I often get the "are you serious?!" reaction, when it should be clear that I have serious contempt for anyone who takes Usenet seriously. ;) But I digress. > * Not. In all seriousness, I'd lose that device. > > > > >> This is my unresolved issue with getting positioning > >> info from jsMath so I can accurately position those things within > >> qooxdoo widgets: the character is there, it's just positioned outside > >> the widget. > > > Ah, that's a shame. If only you'd use real buttons. > > Actually, I think this is exactly /why/ I am not writing my own html. So, because qooxdoo's faux buttons exhibit problems that standard HTML buttons do not share, you decided to eschew HTML for qooxdoo. Odd choice. > But to use jsMath I will have to make it work within the qooxdoo > framework. Your chosen math library requires qooxdoo? > Pray for me. Sure. Send me $100(US) per month and I'll put in a good word for you with the volcano God. > > > > >> Hmmm. Maybe this is a qooxdoo issue. > > > Very likely suspect. > > I'll be sure to report back (as if you had any doubt). I don't doubt it, but I wish you wouldn't. You are simply wasting time and space. > > > > >> They have an Html widget for raw > >> HTML. > > > Again with that. Why would you use an "HTML widget" to write HTML. > > The very idea is mind-boggling. Do they also have a "CSS widget" and > > a "JS widget"? > > What is mind-boggling is your density. Destiny? > Move over, osmium! Who? > Aside from > qooxdoo's speed and quality, its big win is that one need not do > html/css. Right, well we've been over that. The losses just keep piling up, but you are too deluded to see it. > Unless of course one wants to, in which case one trots out the > qx.ui.embed.Html widget. In which case their app will break down and have to be destroyed. :) > > My guess (based on inspection of jsMath-generated html is that, for > things with interesting vertical positioning issues such as fractions, > jsMath is positioning stuff at a negative vertical offset (if up is > negative in html-land) and the qooxdoo widget is not allowing that. Sounds like a match made in heaven. > But I /am/ guessing. The issue was never in doubt. > > > > >> Seems to me it should accept responsibility for displaying all the > >> HTML absent any misguided directives from moi-self. > > > Seems to me that you have abdicated responsibility for tasks that you > > don't know how to do to others who are also without a clue. That's > > certainly misguided (but a popular approach in Web development). > > You say "abdicate", I say "standing on the shoulders". ....of midgets. > As for "without a > clue", they have done a lot more with JS than you have based on your two > sites. You don't build sites with JS, Kenny. Oh wait... :) > You might want to take a break from Usenet and write some more > code, maybe you could have me as a user some day. You really are out of it, aren't you? > > > > >> dig dig dig.... > > > You'll be in China before this is over. :) > > > And enough with the qooxdoo diary entries. They are obviously of no > > interest to this group. > > Sorry, I did not realize this was your newsgroup... hang on... There have been a lot of complaints from the tenants.
From: John G Harris on 31 Jul 2010 13:33
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 at 20:13:13, in comp.lang.javascript, Kenneth Tilton wrote: <snip> > http://teamalgebra.com/ <snip> Still very slow to load. Training center, Numeric Fractions, Adding and Subtracting : The numbers in the boxes are only partly visible - just the bottom quarter of the bottom number. Is this the library problem you were talking about ? John -- John Harris |