Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!decuac!bacchus.pa.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!jg
From: jg@crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Xlib code/doc discrepancies
Keywords: X.V11R4, truth, differences
Message-ID: <1990Oct24.123247.723@crl.dec.com>
Date: 24 Oct 90 12:32:47 GMT
References: <751@igor.Rational.COM>
Sender: news@crl.dec.com (USENET News System)
Reply-To: jg@crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Organization: DEC Cambridge Research Lab
Lines: 40

The definition of the truth is the specification.

Of course, specifications can have errors as well.

You are using a page number; but you don't say what edition
of what book you are referring to.  This makes it real hard to
help you (or anyone else).  Page 224 is certainly no where
near XrmStringToQuarkList in the Digital Press book, either
first or second edition, or in the O'Reilly books I have
(though these are reorganized from the MIT masters, and we can take
no responsibility for any errors).

As to what the definition of the truth is, that is a good
question.  It has ultimately been the specification shipped on
the MIT X distribution (with whatever modifications that have been
made in the X Consortium since the last release); 
this will likely change to the ANSI spec when it is approved.  
I have some misgivings about this, as ANSI currently
sells their documents rather than them being freely available.
(This is how standards bodies fund themselves, strangely enough:
they sell the specifications...).

The Digital Press book, "The X Window System", 2nd edition, 
by Bob Scheifler and myself is as close to the truth as we could make it.
(DP ISBN 1-55558-050-5, PH ISBN 0-13-972050-2).  As far as
we know, it is word for word identical to the MIT specification for
the protocol and Xlib, typeset from the original files to a more
reasonable style.  

The XLFD and ICCCM in the second edition (by Jim Flowers and David Rosenthal)
of the Digital Press book have had a copy edit performed from the MIT
originals; I don't know if the changes in wording may
yet have been approved by the X Consortium for these specifications,
though they are much clearer than the original (Bob, what is the
current state?).

-- 
Jim Gettys
Digital Equipment Corporation
Cambridge Research Laboratory