[RFC] RandR 1.3 properties
mhopf at suse.de
Fri Nov 7 10:38:41 PST 2008
On Nov 07, 08 18:48:18 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 5:19 PM, Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de> wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 08 22:44:35 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote:
> >> Is there any chance to get rid of strings in the protocol/server
> >> altogether and stick to standardised "names" and properties (in the
> >> form of enums) as much as possible?
> > Sounds reasonable to me. We should still stick to ATOMs to make this
> > extensible, but for the standardized values we should have standardized
> > ATOMs.
> Just to be clear, i was also referring to output names, which have a
> habit to be slightly different pretty much everywhere.
I don't see that coming ATM. There are at least two different
interpretations of what RandR outputs actually are, both with different
pros and cons.
We had a discussion on the radeonhd mailinglist whether to move to the
interpretation used e.g. by radeon, but that would kill a few special
cases, and consensus (well, that might be too strong a word, say >50%)
was that we should stick with the current interpretation, with slightly
less complicated names.
Matthias Hopf <mhopf at suse.de> __ __ __
Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ mat at mshopf.de
Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de
More information about the xorg