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

Bill Haneman Bill.Haneman at Sun.COM
Wed Jun 21 02:39:04 PDT 2006

On Tue, 2006-06-20 at 21:14, George Kraft wrote:
> 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?

The C ABI is defined by /usr/include/at-spi-1.0/spi/Accessibility.h plus
the definitions of the various CORBA data types as defined by the OMG.

libspi.so includes a conformant implementation of that ABI.  It also
includes other things that are not normative, so the generated IDL
header should be the authoritative source here.  Of course to avoid
error the person(s) writing the conformance tests should be familiar
with the OMG CORBA standard.


> -- 
> George (gk4)
> _______________________________________________
> Accessibility mailing list
> Accessibility at lists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/accessibility

More information about the Accessibility mailing list