This is a new version of the new screen update protocol, based on
feedback in the previous round.
Basic changes:
- Removal of sizing hints. This is a big problem, and better suited by
a separate pseudoencoding that can send all sorts of information,
including enumerations of valid sizes.
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:45 +0100
Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
However, I still think 16 bits to be too little to deliver a useful
error response for something as complex as this and I wish you a happy
time telling users to read the manual of the server they are connecting
to when
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:30:51 +0100
Pierre Ossman oss...@cendio.se wrote:
How do local equivalents behave? How does Windows or RandR respond to
an invalid change request? I haven't seen much more than sod off in
the way of helpfulness from those systems either. The only addition
might be that
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
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 feedback on the protocol, and allocation of
10 matches
Mail list logo
