From: Dom Lachowicz (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Apr 22 2002 - 10:50:39 EDT
On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 10:43, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> At 10:20 AM -0400 4/22/02, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> >I'd rather port a threading interface from GLIB to platform XYZ than
> >redesign Pango. Plus this means that more people will get to use our
> >work from GLib. Let's prioritize here, people. Fixing a makefile or
> >coding one well-defined function is easy. Coding an entire
> >internationalization/localization platform is billions of orders of
> >magnitude harder.
> So from this I am guessing that the "plan" is to use Pango,
> and make sure that we can build the necessary parts of glib on all
> the target platforms and just live with all the code duplication
> (containers, threading models, etc.) that will ensue.
> And will you be using Pango on top of FT2 or native rendering?
If you notice, I left that intentionally vague and unanswered. Pango is
extremely good at what it does, and it does do a lot. From what I hear,
Uniscribe fits the bill as well.
I'll let the technical merits speak for themselves in another thread.
The point of my previous email was simply to inform and educate the
masses and point out that if we did use Pango or something similar to
it, it would probably be a far easier job to port/fix something that is
broken in an existing solution rather than roll our own
iternationalization and localization library that runs well (if at all)
on all of these disparate platforms. If we roll our own, so much can go
wrong and so much is needed to get it right. We simply don't have the
time, resources, or patience for this. At least I don't. But other
people (pango, uniscribe) have at least solved part of our problem for
us. Let's be "real opensource" and adapt and build upon the work of
others where applicable.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Apr 22 2002 - 10:53:30 EDT