From: Paul Rohr (email@example.com)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 15:00:17 EDT
At 06:26 PM 5/7/02 +0200, Christian Biesinger wrote:
>Paul Rohr wrote:
>> 1. native, non-bidi ... the well-tested code that everyone uses now
>> 2. bidi ... some testing, not enough use
>> 3. Pango-based ... to be written and/or ported as needed
>> I also am willing to believe that we'll get to the point where #3 is good
>> enough that we should *also* replace #1. However, I'm stunned to hear
>> we're already at this point.
>As I understand it, #2 will replace #1; not #3.
Why do it then? The whole point of doing #3 is to replace #2, right? For
many many languages -- indeed for most existing computer users AFAIK -- #1
Just Works already and *neither* #2 nor #3 is needed. [**]
I understand that simultaneously maintaining all three variants is a
headache, but this sounds like we'd be dropping the wrong one now. If we're
going to have only two variants of the code for a while, wouldn't it make
more sense to drop #2 and focus our efforts on #1 (needs no work) and #3
(needs significant work)?
By switching to #2, don't we expose ourselves to bugs in BiDi-related
portions of the codebase that *we plan to abandon* (in favor of Pango)?
I still must be missing something here.
[**] To be clear. I want #3 to move forward. Supporting more languages is
a very Good Thing. Leveraging other people's expert work to do so is also a
Good Thing. I'm just completely failing to see why we should abandon #1
before #3 is further along.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 07 2002 - 15:01:50 EDT