On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 10:52:12AM +0200, Pierre Ossman wrote: > As you may or may not have noticed, Real's rfbproto.pdf does not > contain any descriptions for all the additions that have been made to > the protocol outside of RealVNC. The additions I suggested with regard > to our RandR support have also been ignored. > > I see this as a big problem if we want the VNC community to work > together in an efficient manner. Without a well written specification > and a well known location for it, implementations will diverge and they > will not be interoperable. > > Therefore I propose we "fork" the specification. We'll refer to RealVNC > when it comes to protocol number assignments (for know at least), but > we'll maintain our own copy of rfbproto where we fully describe all the > additions. We should also encourage other VNC implementations to send > their additions to us so that we can have one, complete protocol > specification. > > As for the document format, I propose we use restructured text. It's a > nice convenient format that's easy to use in its raw format and there > are tools to easily convert it to other formats. It also allows us and > others to link directly to the subversion copy, making sure that people > browse the latest version and not one that was generated the last time > we made a release. >
I think it is the best long-term approach. But we have to take an action very carefully. In the end we could have RFC for RFB protocol. I would like to know status of other VNC developers (qemu, TightVNC, x11vnc, UltraVNC etc) and of course, status from RealVNC. Then if we get wide support we could start working on that. You have my vote. Adam -- Adam Tkac, Red Hat, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-devel mailing list Tigervnc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-devel
