Re: How much do we have to pay to get a minimum of efficiency from HTML5

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How much do we have to pay to get a minimum of efficiency from HTML5

Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
LiveCode cannot do anything for you with that.

The security dictator is
1. the OS
2. the browser you use for the standalone.

There are a lot of differences alone by variations of
these two.

Yes, read and write from files is doable, but with the
restrictions given by OS security and Browser security,
what means: User interaction and/or same origin policy.
For example you can read without any problems from the
standalone's server location.

With the help of a bit javascript you can read from any
local file using a dialog, but you can write to nowhere
but the user's downloads folder.

I have shown that already long ago with some of my HTML5
examples (available incl. source code).

TMHO there are so few license holders in HTML5 that
there is nearly no step forward in that field -- sadly
a downward spiral.

Sadly, because there are already a *lot* of features
implemented -- if you are able to handle that under the
user's OS and browser.

_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How much do we have to pay to get a minimum of efficiency from HTML5

Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
A few words in defence of the LC HTML5 standalone builder.

1. > Pi wrote:
> To answer your subject heading, I did some calculating based on the
> current state of HTML5 deployment and my own experience in doing the
> fixes single-handed for it. I work it out in the region of £15k.

This is of course heavily depending on your skills in both Livecode
Script and JavaScript. You shouldn't blame LiveCode if you need a lot
of time for simple fixes/workarounds.

2. (As to Alain's bug report relating to the browser widget).
Nobody from LC ever claimed, a browser widget would work in a HTML5
standalone.

Also: everything (and more) what you can do with a browser widget
can you do in the browser, may be using an iFrame for the display.
Moreover, the available javascript in the browser is usually more
up-to-date than what's integrated in the browser widget.

A browser widget is good for exercising the parts that you do later
on in the webpage from your standalone using the browser.
The "translation" from browser widget to webpage is easy and fast
to learn.

3. There *was* progress in HTML5 until midth 2018:
= A greatly improved and very simple "Test" procedure.
= Implementing multiple stack windows (you can even do "go url").
= Doing networking as much as OS and browser allow.

[Sadly there *are* still basic things missing, especially full
keyboard support and much better font support.]
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How much do we have to pay to get a minimum of efficiency from HTML5

Bob Sneidar via use-livecode
In reply to this post by Bob Sneidar via use-livecode

> On Nov 19, 2019, at 12:01 AM, hh via use-livecode <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> TMHO there are so few license holders in HTML5 that
> there is nearly no step forward in that field -- sadly
> a downward spiral.

Interesting. And I was waiting for it to be production ready before paying money for it.

Kee Nethery
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[hidden email]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode