Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: IEEE 1201.1 (was XVT - Informations wanted)
Message-ID: <1990Sep11.175900.22158@alphalpha.com>
Date: 11 Sep 90 17:59:00 GMT
References: <9009092139.AA26152@zia.aoc.nrao.edu>
Organization: asi
Lines: 47

In article <9009092139.AA26152@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes:
>I am right in assuming that the revised project authorization in intended
>to include the development of a common API for OSF/Motif and the OPEN LOOK
>GUI (and anything else that may be around but making less noise)?  This

Not so much a "common" API as one which sits above and uses the existing
API's as a substrate.

>will get a lot of support from X programmers and users if not from the GUI
>vendors.  Some sort of reconciliation is needed between OSF/Motif and
Not from this one.  I've got enough problems dealing with the lack
of support and bugs in existing APIs.  The last thing I need is a partial
implementation of the functionality which sits on top of another toolkit.
Then I have to worry about support and bugs in TWO toolkits, not to mention
bypassing the toplevel one (in a different manner for each underlying API)
to get the full functionality that I need.  Finally I need something that
is running now, not two or three years from now.  And I'd appreciate it
if I didn't need a separate doc set for each machine (depending on the
underlying toolkit of course).

Now if someone has a solution that addresses those problems I'd be very
interested.

>OPEN LOOK and, since the two opposing camps appear to lack the will to
>do this, it obviously has to be imposed by some outside body that is
>perceived as neutral.  An IEEE standards body seems ideal, provided that
>the vendors can be prevented from gaining enough power to hogtie the
>committee.

First of all I wouldn't use the word "P1201" and "neutral" in the same
sentence.  Secondly, I'm getting a little pissed off at this "vendors" vs.
"users" stuff.  There are technical reasons why a compromise is not a good
idea, not just political ones.  But if you try and indicate that you'd rather
have one solution or another instead of some hybrid then you are promptly
branded as being biased towards one vendor or another and ignored.  Frankly
I'd rather code my apps to two different toolkits than try and make them work
with a limited functionality hybrid.

							-kee
-- 
Alphalpha Software, Inc.	|	motif-request@alphalpha.com
nazgul@alphalpha.com		|-----------------------------------
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)	|	Proline BBS: 617/641-3722

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.