Ahm, can we change it?, I mean it's not SUCH a big change and I'm sure that all of us will support it. And we can always maintain backward compatibility.
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Morton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 4:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RFB Protocol >Does someone know, why RFB which is not fixed message size protocol >(when it comes to screen updates) is not defined the Following way: > >[CARD32 MessageSize] >[Message[MessageSize]] > >Why the protocol does not contain a Message Size field as the 1st >member? Lack of foresight, probably. The original developers never realised that future extensions might go beyond simple graphics encodings. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- from: Jonathan "Chromatix" Morton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (not for attachments) website: http://www.chromatix.uklinux.net/vnc/ geekcode: GCS$/E dpu(!) s:- a20 C+++ UL++ P L+++ E W+ N- o? K? w--- O-- M++$ V? PS PE- Y+ PGP++ t- 5- X- R !tv b++ DI+++ D G e+ h+ r++ y+(*) tagline: The key to knowledge is not to rely on people to teach you it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
