I understand the idea that people want the controls to behave similarly
on each platform, but it raises a question: What does the customers and
users of the software want? Do they want the controls to work the same
on all platforms, or do they want the most "native" controls on their
platform?
Yes, the controls might differ in their functionality, but there is no
reason why a lowest-common-denominator subset of the desired features
couldn't be exposed, and specific enhanced, platform-specific, features
couldn't be made available. Isn't that what they've done with the HTML
browser control?
- Ryan Dary
Norman Palardy wrote:
On Nov 13, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Ryan Dary wrote:
I have heard this a few times now. With all due respect to the author
of Formatted Text Control, the concept of editable text is probably
one of the oldest technologies in computing. Why would we encourage
RB to incorporate the newest iteration of the same thing? Why not
simply encourage RB to actually wrap up the most high-performance
native solution for each target platform?
Because they vary wildly ?
If they are going to tout "Cross platform that really works" that sets
an expectation.
If you write a text editor on Windows you might expect it should work
similarly on Linux and OS X. (Try RTF on Windows and then Linux and OS X)
That's certainly not the case today as you well know.
I think that disappoints people because it's not what they expect.
The one thing I hope to get out of the effort from True North is a truly
cross platform edit field that works about the same on each platform and
not the huge variation we have today.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
