Last night I checked in support for attributes in netWindow's generic parser routine. I've since updated almost all of the widgets and sample pages. While not exactly enthralling, this improvement should both make inline widgets much more legible and easier to use. A substantial side benefit of this change is that for widgets like the tree viewer the use of attributes in place of sub elements can speed up processing times by an order of magnitude by reducing the depth of recursion. All in all, a very good thing for the project.
My DHTML article for DevX.com is up!
The Konqueror folks have just earned my undying respect. Yesterday I decided that I should try to figure out exactly what portions of NW were in fact working on Konqueror.
After a couple of hours of hacking I can report that most widgets work flawlessly on Konqueror 2.99 and performance is more than acceptable. I honestly thought I'd have to wait another 6 months before we would be able to support Konqueror, but last night's hack proves otherwise. Konqueror 2.2.2 appears to be a lost cause, but I think this is something of a non-issue.
To make your netWindows installations work with Konqueror, grab the lastest CVS code for the main codebase and change all instances of the special attribute "__element_definition" to "eldef" in your netWindows pages, and you're good to go.
I love Open Source.
To my astonishment, the majority of the netWindows core scripts function without problem on Konqueror 2.99. That's a long way from having widgets and a content loading system that work on that browser, but it's a couple hundred percent more than I expected to be functional. Guess it's proof that if you code defensively and work with the standards your code will be viable in places you couldn't envision it. And those are types of applications that tend to really matter, the ones we don't think about.
Today I also discovered that in the JS debugger (Venkman) build included in Mozilla 0.9.9, there is a profiling option. The profiling information it kicks out is super useful for understanding what takes how long and why. I can tell already that it's going to be absolutely invaluable in tweaking 0.3.0.
Had dinner with CJ tonight as we went grocery shopping (I know, how romantic). Anyway, it came up that I don't mention her (or anyone else I know that doesn't have a web page) in my weblog, and she wondered why. Which, I guess is a good question.
So why don't I talk about these (important) people in my life? Well, I guess the best answer I've got is that they haven't put their lives on the web, so what right do I have to do it for them? I suppose that I could ask people before mentioning them or whatever, but somehow that seems to go against the grain of having a weblog. Anyway, I got permission from her to talk about her (and us) in the weblog, I'm just not sure what that means (or should mean). I'm pretty adamant about keeping my private life private, and I'm not even sure about my own comfort level.
It was easy before because I just had a little mental rule that I could follow, but now that rule has been questioned, and rightly so. Perhaps if my weblog had a theme I wouldn't have this issue, but as it is, it doesn't have a theme and I don't know how many relevant things I have to say on a single topic. Not to mention, my brain doesn't function in anything approaching a linear fashion, so a single purpose weblog wouldn't fit me very well anyway.
Well, these are the things that are ganwing at my brain. At least I can rest assured that now that she said I can mention her, I can embarass the heck out of CJ (she made it for a class).