Den 2009-03-13 13:01 skrev Pierre Ossman:
Hi,
We've been working on client initiated screen size changes and need to
extend the protocol to do that.
In order to minimise the number of extensions, we'd also like to
accommodate multi-head configurations with this new protocol.
So we'd like your
Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:44:07 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi Pierre!
There is also the WMVi pseudo-encoding (0x574d5669, or WMVi in FourCC)
to consider. A problem with this new proposal is that *both* WMVi and
this multihead scheme are better than the
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:38 +0100
Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
That would be very against the RFB mentality, yes. But the wiki entry
you pointed to suggests that these encodings are just used for
offline rendering. At that point there
Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:38 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
That would be very against the RFB mentality, yes. But the wiki entry
you pointed to suggests that these encodings are just used for
offline rendering. At
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:20 +0100
Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
Annoying. Do they also rely on putting the conversion requirements on
the client?
Yes. If a client claims support for WMVi, it has to support all pixfmts
(or disconnect on
Den 2009-03-16 18:15 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:20 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
Annoying. Do they also rely on putting the conversion requirements on
the client?
Yes. If a client claims support for WMVi, it has to support all pixfmts
