Re: A89: TCML Proposal
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A89: TCML Proposal
You guys keep on talking about the browser - TCML, etc.., who cares? Let's
see a valid TCP/IP connection established first: and I'll be impressed. I
still think this is off topic because out of all the topic of HTML, TCML,
there hasn't been any code written to do this. It's still dreaming.. dreams
are for hardware@lists.ticalc.org and basic@lists.ticalc.org - If people
would stop talking about what they are going to do and just do it, I'd have
2000 less messages in my mailbox then I do now. You guys keep on saying
"..oh that shouldnt be too hard".. "that's pretty simple".. well let's see
the program already.. I wish ticalc.org had a stricter moderator.
>First-
>That was one of the things talked about. There will be a cgi script on
ticalc.org or someplace that
>will allow the translation from HTML into TCPL binary.
>
>Second-
>There is a reason to have two versions of TCPL: text and binary. The
reason to have a binary
>version is obvious- to make the calc process and display the page as fast
as possible. The reason
>to have a text version is so that the page could be edited in the TI-89
text editor and so that the
>page can be written specifically for the calculator.
>
>Writing an HTML browser shouldn't be a problem, but you'll sacrifice the
speed on your calc that the
>cgi could be doing for you on the server. That's more than ~50Mhz
difference, at least.
>
>-Miles Raymond EML: m_rayman@bigfoot.com
>ICQ: 13217756 IRC: Killer2 AIM: MRayMan
>http://www.bigfoot.com/~m_rayman/
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jimmy Mårdell <yarin@acc.umu.se>
>To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
>Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 1:40 PM
>Subject: Re: A89: TCML Proposal
>
>
>At 12:38 1999-01-17 -0600, you wrote:
>>>I don't agree with this. "Not enough processor power"?? Parsing a
textfile
>>>takes no time whatsoever, even on a TI-8x calc with a Z80. The speed
problem
>>>might be the output of text if you want it in different sizes, but I
>seriously
>>>doubt that as well. TCML might take less memory though - that's about
all.
>>
>>I don't doubt the 89's ability to parse large text files, but HTML is a
>>very complex language. Imagine how many instructions you would need to
>>look at each character if you were displaying an HTML file. With my TCML
>>it would take less then five instructions _per_line_. Weather or not the
>>89 can handle HTML, TCML will be much faster and easier. You should note
>>that TCML is designed to support TCML/HTML browsers with the <TCML> tag.
I
>>aggree that it would be nice to view HTML docs, but I'm not willing to
>>write that browser.
>
>First, what's the point of making a browser supporting only TCML when
>all webpages on the net are in HTML? Should it only be possible to go
>to special sites made for ticalcs...?
>
>Second, you said you would convert the textform of TCML to some binary
>format so a tag took one byte. I assumed this convertion would be
>done on the computer. Why not make a program to convert a HTML document
>to some binary form, omitting the tags that are too complicate...?
>
>Writing a simple HTML browser, like Lynx should't be any problem. Lynx
>doesn't support much... not even tables IIRC.
>
>//Jimmy Mårdell
>
>E-mail: yarin@acc.umu.se
>Homepage: http://www.acc.umu.se/~yarin/
>
>
>
Follow-Ups: