Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU!mouse From: mouse@SHAMASH.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: printing at X terminals Message-ID: <9007172230.AA01574@shamash.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> Date: 17 Jul 90 22:30:21 GMT Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Organization: The Internet Lines: 40 > To me, using the existing pipe provided by X for input/output to > ports on the terminal is esthetically clean. And to me it isn't - so what? > Viewed in a broader context than is generally appropriate on this > list, X devices are local input/output devices. The argument seems to be arising from the disagreement between those who feel that X should be a workstation interface protocol and those who think it should be a window system protocol. >>> The implementations of X terminal printing are currently all >>> different, are not secure, and don't run on all transport layers >>> supported by the server. >> All of which are orthogonal to the question of whether it should be >> done using an X extension. (Which is perfectly true.) > This response frustrates me, because it doesn't show an appreciation > for the practical problems encountered by terminal manufacturers and > users who are trying to implement solutions on the fringes of the > standards world (and standards don't imply availability anyway!). > The practical issues are important too. X could provide a standard > for local input/output. An input/output extension for a simple > byte-stream protocol is all that's needed. What are you waiting for? Write an input/output extension and make it available. That's how X came about, after all; nobody forced it on us. > I propose a simple extension to X for input/output. Well? So where is it? (I probably wouldn't use it; I don't think it belongs as a part of standard X. But I definitely welcome experimental additions.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu