[Desktop_architects] Portland: The Linux DesktopIntegrationInterface

[Bastian, Waldo]

Both Redhat and Novell have tried to address that issue by developing widget-styles that make the two widget sets look similar. That's one step. The other step is to actively identify tie-ins with the desktop environment, define common interfaces for such functionality (like Portland does) and then have the development libraries use those interfaces instead.
In some cases it may be easier to settle on a common solution between the two desktops. Font configuration (e.g. which font to use in menus / toolbars / etc.) comes to mind as an area that could be improved this way.

Cheers,
Waldo
________________________________________
From: desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org [mailto:desktop_architects-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Brooks, Phil
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 10:01 PM
To: desktop_architects at lists.osdl.org
Subject: RE: [Desktop_architects] Portland: The Linux DesktopIntegrationInterface

As an attendee at the ISV session, the ISV issue of two widget development environments was certainly a point of contention between the ISVs (there should be 1 widget set like on Windows and Mac) vs. reps from the two desktops (there isn't any way to do that).
 
I wonder in retrospect if the ISV issue would be more accurately voiced as there being two second class widget sets.  I mean not that the widget sets themselves are in any way flawed, but there is the distinct flavor of the development libraries being firmly attached to one or the other desktop and being in some way second class on the other desktop.  
 
I wonder if it would be possible, from both a marketing viewpoint, and a technical viewpoint, to remove the widget set preference for the desktops as far as hosted ISV applications are concerned.  That way, an ISV could choose between the widget sets on their own technical merits, and (eventually) not worry about that widget set providing a better user experience for one desktop and not fitting in well with the other.
 
What would that take?