On Tue, Mar 04, 2003 at 12:57:48PM -0800, David Sankel wrote:
Hello,
I would like to clarify my opinion. I would strongly suggest to _not_ use Qt as a backend primarily to license issues. I suggested using the Qt feature-set as a goal feature-set. If there is somebody who wants to write a binding to Qt then that is not a problem. As far as I remember you were about the only one who endorsed Qt.
I think that sound api should be of low priority (aside from the simple windows asterix like sounds when a dialogue pops up). I put sound and printing at the very bottom of the list which should mean
As Simon said, we want to have a spec that is implementable. The only way to ensure this is to propose some functionality, implement it on all backends mentioned in the document and then mark it as stable when it worked out for all backends. That is the only reason I included the list of backends. If there is no one to write a binding to Qt right now, then Qt has to be removed from the list. That doesn't preclude writing a binding to backends not in the list. But such an effort will not influence the spec anymore. So if there are people out there who are willing to write backends for other platforms: now is the time to add them to the report. they have a low priority. I can remove them if other people think this is out of scope but I sense that this effort is nothing that has a definite end but can go on for quite a long time.
Regarding GIO, I am very interested and it seems like the way to go. I can't find it on the internet though. Can someone give me a link so I may review it? Search for GIO on sourceforge.net.
I would suggest putting aside the MDI SDI questions for now, and work on defining a widget set. But we need to know how to set up a main window before we put any widgets in it, don't we? I can imagine that once we are past this stage, adding widgets will be quick and simple.
I adjusted your comment on Qt. Thanks, Axel.