Re: Heated agreement? (was) Re: Canvas shortcomings
- From: Martin Sevior <msevior mccubbin ph unimelb edu au>
- To: Mark <jamess1 wwnet net>
- Cc: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>, Lauris Kaplinski <lauris ximian com>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Gustavo João Alves Marques Carneiro <ee96090 fe up pt>, gnome-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Heated agreement? (was) Re: Canvas shortcomings
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 12:12:07 +1000 (EST)
On Tue, 19 Jun 2001, Mark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Martin Sevior wrote:
>
> >
> > It seems to me that we're in heated agreement that there should be a set
> > of virtual primitive functions that call arbitary backend graphics
> > contexts. Right?
> >
>
> Well, I posted some messages too, so I don't know if the debate was
> limited to three points of view in total agreement.
>
> I'm not sure why this is on a public list. Why don't you three e-mail each
> other and figure out a solution. The general feeling I get from this
> discusion is one of insolence and volutary ignorance.
>
Well I didn't know there was going to be a debate until I saw it on the
list. I just joined in like you.
I'm sorry for implying you agreed with me. That's why I put the "?" on the
subject line.
Regarding willful ignorance, would you care to adress why a pure
postscript solution is better than a virtual Front End with a variety of
backends (Postscript amongst them.)
My experience with AbiWord is that a relative simple set of graphics
primitives enables a workable driver for a diverse set of outputs.
I think trying to do the same for a postscript interpreter would be much
harder and almost certainly slower.
Cheers
Martin
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]