Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnewsm!mls
From: mls@cbnewsm.att.com (mike.siemon)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look
Subject: Re: What's the diff between xview and xt+?
Summary: not meant dismissively
Message-ID: <1990Nov14.182748.21664@cbnewsm.att.com>
Date: 14 Nov 90 18:27:48 GMT
References: <102130@cc.utah.edu> <1990Nov14.145853.12678@cbnewsm.att.com> <1990Nov14.170501.2667@mcs.anl.gov>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 33

In article <1990Nov14.170501.2667@mcs.anl.gov>, korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov
(Peter Korp) writes:

I wrote:

> >XView is an X11 toolkit that is NOT based on the X Consortium standard Xt.
> 
> Oh come on now....
> 
> XView is an X11 toolkit based on Xlib, which is just as "standard" as Xt.

Sorry; my comment was in no way intended to be dismissive of XView -- you
rightly point to the value of an easy port from SunView.  This is part of
the flexibility of options I alluded to, and despite user confusion I do
indeed hope that the variety of options is of value to customers.

> This "standards" thing has gotten a bit out of hand.

That may be the case :-), nonetheless there *are* customers who specifically
want an Xt-based  OPEN LOOK (partly as protection; so that a common API to
different toolkits may be used for development).  My comment about Xt being
(now) a Consortium standard was meant to contrast with the inital X11 release
in which the intrinsics were still incomplete and were *not* offered as a
standard.  Consortium standardization in *this* case is not a requirement
that anyone use Xt, but a kind of guarantee that intrinsics-based toolkits
*will* have a stable base under Consortium control.

not intending to step on any toes ... :-)
-- 
Michael L. Siemon		"O stand, stand at the window,
m.siemon@ATT.COM		    As the tears scald and start;
...!att!sfsup!mls		 You shall love your crooked neighbor
standard disclaimer	    	    With your crooked heart."