Ted Gould wrote:
I read through the discussion, and I still can't see any reason to add a XUL dependency. I can't imagine that it wouldn't be huge, plus there is no GUI tool that I know of to create it.
I'm not pushing to add a XUL dependency per se, just that some approach along those lines could be good.
I think that one of our goals was to make creating scripts easy -- I think that Glade would make it easier for people creating scripts.
A little bit. But then again, Glade's markup is heavily presentational. Script authors could get suck into doing all sorts of 'detail' stuff and not get to focus on funtionality.
Also, Glade is already tied into GTK+ (a current dependency) and it may already be part of the GtkMM integration. Lastly, I don't see any advantage with using the Inkscape XML representation with any way that we create because it will be independent of any type of repr access, everything should tie into extension parameters, which would be a set of functions.
Tie in, yes. "set of functions" maybe or maybe not.
Then again, those doing scripts should be having to deal with DOM and tree structures anyway. So applying that same knowledge to the preference running would mean a consistent paradigm and interface for those doing scripting.
So, I guess I see a plan as follows:
- I'll make the generic preference interface pass back a Gtk::Widget *
EEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeekkkkkk!!!!!!!!
- Scripts won't work right now, the first person to implement it gets to
choose how they do it :)
Sounds good.