eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard) (09/15/88)
I have a series of questions on several related topics:
1. How correct is the following assumption?: Periodically, the
folks at MIT release new versions of the X Windows system, e.g.,
X11R3. Shortly after this official release, one can send a check
to the MIT Microcomputer Center and get all the source code on
tape, and hardcopy documentation. Between releases, fixes,
enhancements, etc., are posted to a node which is accessible
via, e.g., Usenet. These fixes, etc. are all incorporated into
the following release of X.
2. How correct is the following assumption: Vendors of commercial
products which claim to support X acquire these releases and
incorporate at least the concepts into their products. For
example, if a vendor is selling an X server, this server will
recognize the standard X protocol, and respond with the standard
X protocol, even though the internal structure may not look
anything at all like the server software which comes from MIT.
[Of course, such a server would have to exhibit the correct
behavior expected of all X servers.] As another example, a
vendor may supply a library whose user interface looks nothing
like the X library's interface. However, such a library would
have to transmit and recognize the standard X protocol in its
underlying implementation, e.g., via a binding to a more
conventional X library.
3. I have been lead to believe that there is a market for
stand-alone libraries, and stand-alone servers which support the
X protocol. For example, one might purchase a library from one
vendor and a server from another. Is this a valid assumption?
4. Are there stand-alone documents which describe the standard X
protocol? These documents, for example, could be used to
implement the server and library described in the previous
question. Hopefully, an implementor does not have to "wade
through thousands of lines of library and server source code" to
extract the standard X protocol.
5. Finally, how often do the previously mentioned fixes,
enhancements, etc. impact the standard X protocol?
-- Ed Berard
(301) 695-6960bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (09/15/88)
In article <368@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> eberard@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu (Edward Berard) writes: >4. Are there stand-alone documents which describe the standard X protocol? See RFC1013, Jun 87 (Scheifler), "X Window System Protocol, Version 11". -=- Zippy sez, --Bob Our father who art in heaven.. I sincerely pray that SOMEBODY at this table will PAY for my SHREDDED WHAT and ENGLISH MUFFIN.. and also leave a GENEROUS TIP...