Hi, On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:33:13 +0300 Tor Lillqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >- Can the support for Win9x be dropped from GLib and GTK+ HEAD? Note >that cairo has never worked on Win9x, so GTK+ has de facto not worked >on Win9x since 2.8 anyway. > >Dropping Win9x support would mean (slightly) cleaner source code in a >couple of files.
I vote No, but please let me ask a silly question: if cairo works on Win9x, GTK+ HEAD will work as newer Win32 platforms? Or, even if cairo works on Win9x, more additional (and hard to maintain) codes for Win95 are required? >- Can the support for 256-colour (palettized) display mode be dropped >from GTK+ HEAD? I have no idea whether it even works currently, and I >can't test as my display adapter doesn't even offer a 256-colour mode >in Display Properties. > >If it doesn't work, which I suspect, who is going to fix it? Not I >anyway... > >The support for palettized displays is very ugly and ad-hoc code, it >would be a relief to get rid of it. I have no idea. >- Can support for the ActiveIMM thingie used to implement IMEs on NT4 >(and Win9x) be dropped? Again, I have no idea whether it currently >works anyway... (On Windows 2000 and later IMEs are built in, no >separate thingie is needed.) Either I don't know whether it is still working, but I vote No. >- Can Uniscribe be made non-optional in pangowin32? This would just >mean dropping some lines of configure.in, and dropping some ifdefs >from basic-win32.c. Having it even possible to build pangowin32 >without Uniscribe kinda defeats the whole purpose of Pango, doesn't >it? As I vote Not to the first question, I should vote No again. BTW, the request of Uniscribe backend is for Unicode text layout by Uniscribe instead of HarfBuzz? Anything else? Regards, mpsuzuki _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
