From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <79854fa2b750b211cc6d3a8582aac166@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Building GCC
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 20:23:56 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <71fd6cec90c740459a336a7cc3048b9f@quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 36dc0b88-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> Given a rendering engine with a powerful and hopefully flexible input
>> language, one may be able to write compilers or interpreters for the
>> more popular brands.  Or am I missing the wood for the trees?
>> 
> 
> i think you're right on the mark.  suppose that acme and rio were built
> on "liblayout" and not libframe.  liblayout provides a basic boxes-n-glue
> view of the world; acme/rio export /dev/layout.  a box could contain an image or a
> text frame.  then acme could display things like images along with text,
> static html content (given an educated htmlfmt), etc.

How far away is abaco from all this?  My impression is that it at
least aims in that direction.  Thing is, it always struck me that
abaco and acme ought to be blended, not constructed independently of
each other.

But I must confess that I'm still too scared to look under the larger
Plan 9 applications, I accept them as they come.

++L