[thanks for sending this to a public list, Keith] On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 03:07:30PM -0700, Keith Packard wrote: > > > > > The spec says you get "an error" when the following are true: > > > > > > > > The widget is managed. > > > > The widget's parent is realized. > > > > The parent's class is not a subclass of compositeWidgetClass. > > > I'm getting tons and tons of bug reports from Debian users of my beta > > XFree86 packages over this issue; if I release official packages like this > > that will turn into a flood. Please, please work something out with Keith. > > I'm pretty stuck at this point; the spec is rather clear on this issue and > the implementation has always been broken. X usually focuses on the spec, > but in this case: > > 1) the implementation has always been broken. > 2) the implementation was written *before* the spec. > 3) the implementation is well behaved (and useful). > 4) changing the implementation breaks most apps. > > Given the haphazard development of the spec, I'm tempted to ignore it in > the case of Xt and focus on making applications function again. I'd also > suggest editing the spec and making the existing behaviour standard. > > This will cause errors when VSW5 is run against our Xt version. > > I don't expect to hear any complaints on this list for breaking compliance > with the Xt spec; unless people have serious objections, I think we should > revert Xt to the original code.
I have no objections to reverting the change, or attempting to get the spec modified. Thanks for suggesting a resolution I think we can all live with. Ordinarily I don't like it when implementations break a spec, but I think this may be an exception. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws [EMAIL PROTECTED] | will @goH7OjBd7*dnfk=<q4fDj]Kz?. http://www.debian.org/~branden/ |
pgp7mB15utzF5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
