Re: GWindows and David Botton

["Robert C. Leif" <rleif@rleif.com>]

      
      Although CLAW is the only package that is able to hide most of
Windows' complexity and ugliness, continued development of it for the
Windows GUI is a poor long-term bet.  One of the major advantages of CLAW is
that it is a thick binding.  Since Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) XML
Graphics for the Web (http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/) and XForms
(http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Forms/) provide the infrastructure for a GUI, why
not interface to them and have a truly portable standard GUI. The XML
documents (code) required to be generated should be of about the same
complexity as a Windows Resource file.  There is the extra benefit that this
product should interface with the next version of OpenOffice
(http://www.openoffice.org/). The OpenOffice schema are much more readable
that those for Microsoft Office and appear to be based on W3C standards,
such as SVG and XSL:fo.
      
      OpenOffice "Mission Statement"
      "To create, as a community, the leading international office suite
that will run on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality
and data through open-component based APIs and an XML-based file format."
      Bob Leif 
      ------------------------------
      
      Message: 2
      Date: 27 Sep 2004 14:23:13 -0700
      From: mcneills@landcareresearch.co.nz (Stephen McNeill)
      Subject: Re: GWindows and David Botton
      To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org
      Message-ID: <116a1020.0409271323.1922da15@posting.google.com>
      Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
      
      Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> wrote in message
news:<cj916q$8as$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>...
       
      > I hope that Randy Brukardt's and Tom Moran's respective offers
(making
      > the rest of CLAW GMGPLed, which, if I understand correctly, will
include
      > the media packages) are not deliberately ignored?
      > 
      > Or is there some technical profit in not co-ordinating efforts?
      > I guess Ada vendors have customer who do already use CLAW. Will
      > they be attracted to another great effort likely to be very similar
      > to CLAW, and abandon a supported product (CLAW) that already meets
      > their needs?
      > What kind of support can they expect?
      > 
      > Conversly, imagine that for a Windows bindings project you had
      > - RR Software's experience in building Windows bindings
      > - CLAW customers' interest in the project if based on CLAW
      > - and possibly other vendors' (and customers') interest in an
      >   alternative high level Ada binding.
      > 
      > 
      > -- Georg
      
      Georg, that is a fair point. That is one of the reasons why (in a
      message a few weeks ago I think) I asked whether it was important to
      continue working with GWindows, or alternatively give it a decent
      burial. If the consensus is to stand in behind CLAW, then provided
      there is some general assurance that it is likely to survive, with a
      basic cost that is generally acceptable to a reasonable range of
      users, then I shall stand in line to offer help.
      
      Stephen