Attachable vs. Embeddable
Attachable vs. Embeddable
- Subject: Attachable vs. Embeddable
- From: Leonard Rosenthol <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 09:58:18 -0500
At 7:37 PM -0800 2/7/01, email@hidden wrote:
>For current use, the choice seems to be between using "attachable" in a
broad sense or splitting the subject matter into "attach" = "has a Scripts
menu" and "embeddable" = "everything else".
It's always been true that many more applications support a Scripts
menu than any other use of the earlier term "attachable". So in
order to further help users/scripters determine the capabilities of
an application, and after discussions with the AppleScript team, I
further refined the original terms, making the clear distinction
between the broader case of associating scripts with objects and the
specific case of doing a Scripts menu (the easiest-to-implement and
most common case).
Although I agree that a distinction between "having a script
menu" and traditional "attachability" is important, I am VERY MUCH
against the use of the term "embeddable" for this purpose.
Embeddable implies that not only can a user "attach" a script
to a user interface element, BUT that the script is "embedded" with
that element. Using the Finder and Folder Actions as the standard
user example - we see that the Finder allows users to "attach"
scripts to folder, YET there is no embedding taking place (thank
G-d!).
Therefore, I would suggest that we keep "attachable" to mean
it's original intent of "attachment to user interface elements" and
come up with a term for applications that only have a Scripts menu.
(didn't someone suggest "ScriptMenuable" ;).
Leonard
In my develop column, I clearly defined the
terms. (Be aware that develop articles went through stringent,
sometimes lengthy, technical review by multiple Apple engineers.)
Apple again gave the nod to this distinction when the Scriptability
Scorecard was done. (It was my hope that two things would happen:
1) Because it was really easy, developers all over the universe would
implement a Scripts menu, regardless of whether their application was
scriptable, and 2) Developers would begin to look at associating
scripts with user interface elements in their applications.)
There are significant differences, not only in the implementation
details and effort level required, but also in the user experience.
Scripts menus basically look and operate the same, regardless of the
application, while the user interfaces of the provisions for embedded
scripts vary widely between Smile and FaceSpan. So calling something
"attachable" can mean a consistent user experience that's easy to
implement...hence, "attach" = "has a Scripts menu" and "embeddable" =
"everything else".
Also in the area of helping user/scripters evaluate the usefulness of
the scripting in applications, I forked off object model support from
scriptability. Supporting the object model is the single most
contributor to a consistent feel of the AppleScript language across
applications of different types (wow...deja vu...I said this in
Develop 21, in almost the same words, six years ago!)
Richard 23 <email@hidden> wrote:
Calling an application attachable merely because it adds a scripts menu
seems to me like calling an application scriptable because it implements
"do script" or "do menu". I thought attachable meant that one could
attach
scripts to application objects <-- (plural!) not just to the scripts menu.
Actually, the scripts are being associated with menu items, so it is plural.
And while you might consider that "do script"/"do menu" and attaching
scripts to menu items to both be lightweight implementations, there's
an important distinction. Do Script and Do Menu allow a scripter to
control an application using things other than AppleScript/OSA
(internal application-specific languages and physical user
interface), while a Scripts menu is purely an AppleScript/OSA thing
all the way. Make of it what you will.
Bill Briggs <email@hidden> wrote:
I agree with you Bill. In fact, Cal is contradicting himself here.
>Page 8 of his own Scripter manual reads thus:
"Attachable: An attachable application supports the attaching or
embedding of a script to an object within the application. An
attachable application can associate a script with a button or with a
field in a form, for example. When you click the button or tab out of
the field, the script will run. In some attachable applications, a
script can be associated or embedded with an object or its data, such
as documents which hold different scripts."
Yes. This is because the original Scripter manual was written in
1994, using the earlier definitions. The descriptions in our manual
were intended to provide overview material about AppleScript; the
Scripter manual is not an Apple-approved publication, and should not
be taken as the gospel on this particular subject. This would be a
good thing for us to revise.
Phi Sanders <email@hidden> wrote:
What great development is it to have a Script menu?
I think it's very little conceptually... although few enough apps have them.
Many scripters here take advantage of it, even though it's easy to implement.
So, (in my mind at least) an app with a script menu is simply "scriptable",
and I would reserve "attachable" for apps whose objects and functions can
be "extended" via OSA Scripts :
Unfortunately, what's in your mind isn't accurate. Applications can
(and do) support a Scripts menu without being scriptable. It's 10 or
20 times easier to implement a Scripts menu to an application than it
is to make one scriptable.
And I hope no one ever has to say "tinkerable" again...
Amen, brother.
Cal
--__--__--
_______________________________________________
applescript-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/applescript-users
End of applescript-users Digest
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've got a SmartFriend in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Rosenthol Internet: email@hidden
America Online: MACgician
Web Site: <
http://www.lazerware.com/>
FTP Site: <
ftp://ftp.lazerware.com/>
PGP Fingerprint: C76E 0497 C459 182D 0C6B AB6B CA10 B4DF 8067 5E65