[Accessibility] Fwd: X11 libraries requested for future LSB spec

[George Kraft]

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 16:12 +0100, Bill Haneman wrote:

I agree that the FSGA should produce a normative AT-SPI specification
from the IDL; however, I'm not sure how to validate the runtime provided
by the OS or used by an AT application.

> I believe (and here I am taking a guess, apologies if I am mistaken)
> that PyORBit relies on the OMG C bindings for at-spi - it certainly
> doesn't use cspi.  Being a C language ABI, it is as amenable as cspi
> insofar as writing LSB conformance tests are concerned, and I think it
> is closer to our intention of making the IDL normative.

Is libspi.so and /usr/include/at-spi-1.0/spi/ the true OMG C binding
ABI?

-- 

George (gk4)