[Accessibility] Re: Q
Peter.Korn at Sun.COM
Thu Aug 4 10:30:21 PDT 2005
I wonder if some of what is going on here is the meaning/interpretation of
"de-facto standard" (or even "clear de-facto standard"). If I make the
statement "GTK+ is *a* clear de-facto standard for doing desktop graphics"
instead of the statement "GTK+ is *the* clear de-facto standard for doing
desktop graphics" does it make a difference? Because I believe that "Qt is
*a* clear de-facto standard for doing desktop graphics" too.
Gasoline and diesel are both clear, de-facto standards for fueling automobiles
and trucks. Only gasoline is a clear, de-facto standard for fueling
motorcycles. Hydrogen is no-where near any kind of standard. Neither is
bio-diesel (though that may change).
To me, "clear de-facto standard" doesn't mean "the only one that can exist".
Rather, it means that in the marketplace (of ideas, of whatever), enough folks
use it in the same way that it has become a standard in fact. There are
enough successful applications using both Qt and GTK+, and enough new ones in
active development, and enough Linux distros using them both, that I think
they are both fairly called "de-facto standards".
Sun Accessibility team
Olaf Schmidt wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 4. August 2005 15:10 schrieb Bill Haneman:
>>I don't think so - something being a "clear de-facto standard" is not
>>sufficient for LSB standardization.
> It is not sufficient, but it is necessary. We don't have a "clear de-facto
> standard" toolkit, so none can be standardised by the LSB - unless KDE and Qt
> are considered irrelevant.
>>What's necessary is the clear communication that the issues with Qt have to
>>do with the _other_ requirements, which is what I think George was saying.
> I don't see this as an issue Qt has.
> I rather have a problem with standardising a particular toolkit while no clear
> de-facto standard has evolved.
>>That seem to me to be a matter of getting rid of FUD.
> My impression is that a strong group of people are not interested in getting
> rid of FUD.
> Accessibility mailing list
> Accessibility at mail.freestandards.org
More information about the Accessibility