>From: Glynn Clements <gl...@gclements.plus.com> >Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:58:45 +0100 > >Patrick O'Donnell wrote: > >> >> Someone offered up www.x.org/docs >> ... a guide to what's even in that >> directory. ... > >Okay. > >BDF Bitmap Distribution Format > > Format of BDF bitmap font files >[etc...]
That is helpful. It would make a good README file to go in that directory. If I were to add a smattering of HTML markup for links to the subdirectories, who would be the best person to send it to to be installed there? >In theory, most of the above aren't relevant if you're using toolkits ... > >Writing a GUI application using nothing but raw Xlib is a bad idea. >It's analogous to writing an application without any libraries (even >libc), using nothing but home-grown functions and direct system calls. > >Application programming documentation normally focuses on a specific >toolkit. Oh, I agree. But, as I mentioned in another message, I'm maintaining systems whose X interactions predate pretty much all the toolkits. (I think Xt was in its infancy and was not yet stable enough for our use.) Re-porting¹ the systems to use a toolkit at this time is very unlikely. >The low-level documentation is of interest mainly to authors of >toolkits and/or low-level utilities. I guess that's pretty much where I find myself, actually. Although the module boundaries are not as impermeable as I would wish, our low-level substrate does take the shape of a toolkit. It's too bad that maintaining that substrate happens to be incidental to the maintenance of the applications, and not a directly focussed task. - Patrick ¹I found it amusing how close "re-porting" was to -- as I originally mistyped -- "repotting". The unintentional metaphor is almost apt. _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg