Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!STONY-BROOK.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM!MMcM
From: MMcM@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM (Mike McMahon)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: A developer's view of the X fill policy
Message-ID: <19890104014346.6.MMCM@CARAMBOLA.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: 4 Jan 89 01:43:00 GMT
References: <8901031551.AA01302@EXPIRE.LCS.MIT.EDU>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 11

We have a generic graphics toolkit.  Its lack of specificity has already
caused problems for users.  For instance, the variation in the
interpretation of coordinate arguments among X, QuickDraw, PostScript,
and Windows makes it difficult to reliably draw a thick edge border
within a given rectangle.  We are forced to consider optional half
thickness minor adjustments in the native coordinate system toward some
ideal model, and/or a proliferation of virtual procedures.  I would
hesitate to recommend such fuzziness in the relatively lower level X
standard.  Perhaps where there is a large hardware advantage, access to
its capabilities could be provided via extensions, to be used
intelligently by higher level toolkits.