From: Andrew Dunbar (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue May 07 2002 - 23:41:50 EDT
--- Christian Biesinger <email@example.com> 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
> > 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 that
> > we're already at this point.
> As I understand it, #2 will replace #1; not #3.
I think it's perfectly fair at this point to
deprecate the non-bidi build. People who need this
can use the 1.0 release. All future work needs to
be able to support as many scripts as possible *and*
needs to be tested.
Working on more than two of these is not going to
The pango-only build probably will have many issues
to iron out so we need a non-pango build so other work
can go on.
Since rendering and layout are both changing majorly,
our effort should go into aiming at the pango-only
build but working with the non-pango build in the
The non-Pango build should be the current bidi build
since it's the more capable one and since the current
non-bidi build is going to vanish anyway. Also since
the people most doing most of the work on the
are the people who did the bidi build, asking them to
support also a third (non bidi, non pango) build is
asking way too much.
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
> little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
> Benjamin Franklin
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 07 2002 - 23:44:34 EDT