On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:30:51 +0100
Pierre Ossman wrote:
>
> How do local equivalents behave? How does Windows or RandR respond to
> an invalid change request? I haven't seen much more than "sod off" in
> the way of helpfulness from those systems either. The only addition
> might be that they can
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:45 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> However, I still think 16 bits to be too little to deliver a useful
> error response for something as complex as this and I wish you a happy
> time telling users to read the manual of the server they are connecting
> to when the client get
Den 2009-03-16 18:15 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:20 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
Annoying. Do they also rely on putting the conversion requirements on
the client?
Yes. If a client claims support for WMVi, it has to support all pixfmts
(
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:20 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
> >
> > Annoying. Do they also rely on putting the conversion requirements on
> > the client?
>
> Yes. If a client claims support for WMVi, it has to support all pixfmts
> (or disconnect on reception
Den 2009-03-16 15:00 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:38 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
That would be very against the RFB mentality, yes. But the wiki entry
you pointed to suggests that these encodings are just used for
"offline" rendering. At
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:29:38 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
> >
> > That would be very against the RFB mentality, yes. But the wiki entry
> > you pointed to suggests that these encodings are just used for
> > "offline" rendering. At that point there is no pos
Den 2009-03-16 11:45 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:44:07 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
Hi Pierre!
There is also the WMVi pseudo-encoding (0x574d5669, or "WMVi" in FourCC)
to consider. A problem with this new proposal is that *both* WMVi and
this multihead scheme are "better than" the
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:44:07 +0100
Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> Hi Pierre!
>
> There is also the WMVi pseudo-encoding (0x574d5669, or "WMVi" in FourCC)
> to consider. A problem with this new proposal is that *both* WMVi and
> this multihead scheme are "better than" the DesktopSize pseudo-encoding.
> Bu
Den 2009-03-13 13:01 skrev Pierre Ossman:
Hi,
We've been working on client initiated screen size changes and need to
extend the protocol to do that.
In order to minimise the number of extensions, we'd also like to
accommodate multi-head configurations with this new protocol.
So we'd like your
