Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Motif is a behavior spec also (was Re: Motif -> Open Look look & feel)
Message-ID: <3607@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 3 Jul 90 18:54:44 GMT
References: <3590@auspex.auspex.com> <9006291804.AA06484@flatirons.Central.Sun.COM> <10239@paperboy.OSF.ORG>
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 46

>It was explicit in our Request For Technology in fall '88; it's
>highlighted by our PM-compliant behavior rule; it's spelled out in the
>introduction to our (much-maligned) Style Guide;

Err, well, what said introduction says is:

	This *Style Guide* was written for three audiences:

	Application developers
		...

	Widget developers
		...

	Window manager developers
		...

Although the bit about "Widget developers" does *seem* to allow for the
possibility of a new widget set other than Xm ("...a widget set
consistent with the OSF/Motif user interface."), it doesn't offer much
comfort to anybody, say, trying to tweak the Andrew Toolkit to offer a
Motif-like user interface, nor, I suspect, to the Solbourne folks doing
OI.

In other words, perhaps "Widget developers" should be replaced by
"Toolkit developers" and appropriately rewritten, unless the intent is
to anathematize all X toolkits not based on the Xt Intrinsics....

>and the two-level trademark certification process was announced at a
>press conference July 11, 1989.

Well, to quote Tom LaStrange (whose observation was also made by another
person in email to me):

> I just got the certification package and from what I can tell it is to
> certify a port of Xm to a given vendor's hardware.  It is an API certification
> process, not a "Look&Feel" certification process.  So it seems that the
> only certified OSF/Motif toolkits will be Xm ports.  If I have interpreted
> this wrong I would certainly like someone from OSF to let me know.

So did he interpret it wrong, or is the certification in question
basically a test to make sure your system software (compiler, kernel,
system libraries, Xlib) aren't broken and that you haven't tampered with
the source to Xm, or does the "two-level trademark certification
process" offer one level for Xm ports and another for toolkits written
from scratch (and not necessarily Xt-based)?