On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Udo Richter <udo_rich...@gmx.de> wrote:
>>> This is mostly what the VDR skin interface already provides: A
>>> semantically structured description of the interface. Most skins
>>> translate this into a bitmapped OSD view, but they don't have to. The
>>> skincurses plugin for example uses the text console. VDR itself never
>>> uses the OSD directly, only through the two standard skins.
>> That only works if the default vdr menu layout (i.e. a simple
>> name:value list) fits your needs.
>> If you need a different layout you have to draw directly to the osd
>> (with the side effect that the skincurses plugin won't work).
> Sure. But as I said: VDR only uses the skin interface. Plugins do use
> the OSD directly, but currently expect it to be bitmapped. Vectorized
> structures could be provided by custom skins using plugin-to-plugin
> communications.
> IMHO a bitmapped interface is a good compromise of flexibility and
> simplicity, while vectorized systems tend to be quite complex. (think of
> XUL (mozilla) or XAML (microsoft).)
> However, there's no reason why, for example, a plugin like text2skin
> could not provide advanced rendering to other plugins.

If support for a high res/color OSD is present in the VDR core, why
would you need a plugin to provide anything to any other plugin?
Unless you mean a plugin that handles different ways of supplying the
OSD such as the different techniques previously mentioned (xml, html,
etc etc)?

vdr mailing list

Reply via email to