[lsb-discuss] Request for additional interfaces

Robert Schweikert rjschwei at abaqus.com
Wed Jun 14 16:58:25 PDT 2006


Xft sounds reasonable, we could easily deal with that.

The problem with Gtk+ or Qt is that we would be forced into these
toolkits which means an application re-write (very unlikely). I don't
know anything about Cairo.

It is great that the LSB includes the toolkits. Another great feature of
the LSB is that it allows properly abstracted toolkits to be used and
shipped with an application. For example we use FOX for platform
independence (Gtk+ and Qt have caught up here but too late). FOX is a
toolkit abstracted at the X11 and win32 level. Thus, as long as we ship
FOX with the application we can still have an LSB compliant application
without being forced into Gtk+ or Qt. This means someth library on the
X11 level needs to deal with multi byte characters. Whether this is Xlib
or Xft doesn't matter from an application point of view, changing the
link command takes all but 2 seconds.

Thanks,
Robert

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 16:01 -0700, Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> >X multibyte character interfaces:
> >Xutf8DrawString
> >Xutf8TextExtents
> >Xutf8TextEscapement
> 
> I did some research, and got some pushback. Apparently,
> applications are discouraged from doing UTF-8 work in 
> low-level protocol libraries (Xlib) and should instead make
> use of higher-level toolkits. It was suggested that this
> work could be done in Xft, Cairo, Gtk+ (pango?) or Qt.
> The former two are not part of the LSB now but remain
> on the list; the latter pair are included as of 3.1.
> 
> 
-- 
Robert Schweikert                   MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
(Robert.Schweikert at abaqus.com)                 LINUX
ABAQUS Inc.
Phone : 401-727-4200
FAX : 401-727-4208




More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list