Input device design (3)

Joe Krahn krahn at
Fri Sep 2 12:36:52 PDT 2005

James Cloos wrote:
>  >>>>> "JimG" == Jim Gettys <jg at> writes:
> JimG> One of the nice things about XML formats is that this sort of
> JimG> encapsulation of such information is possible, with a section X
> JimG> understands, and something private to both client and input
> JimG> device.
> If xml is chosen, there is a binary format that is a one-to-one and
> onto mapping of xml.  Using that on the wire/over the air may provide
> enough ‘compression’ to alleviate any latency issues.
> For reducing verbosity in the text representation, there is a sexp
> mapping for xml, as well as json.
> -JimC

The more I think about it, the more I think XML and variants is not so 
useful. Any information we want to pass will necessarily have to get 
encapsulated into the X protocol, so binary packet definitions will have 
  to be defined, where needed, anyhow. Why not use the same binary packets?

Or, is there an idea of embedded XML strings into text Device 
Properties, which are handled similar to Window Properties?


More information about the xorg mailing list