On Fri, 29 May 2009 17:35:30 +0200
Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se wrote:
And it's of course a hell of a mess for no real gain. Loads
easier to just have the server issue the requested pseudo-rect
in its first update, regardless of how the request looks.
What was I thinking?
Apparently
On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 01:09:44PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2009-06-01 11:37 skrev Pierre Ossman:
On Fri, 29 May 2009 21:41:22 +0100
Colin Dean c.c.d...@durham.ac.uk wrote:
I suggest just stick with xvp, which is what it's been called up to
now. After all, it could be applied to
Hi all,
I think the point Colin is trying to make is that he wants to stick
to xvp as that name has already been exposed, google has indexed it
etc etc. Changing the name this late will only cause confusion.
So, instead of trying to find some (poor) expansion of xvp, we just
leave it at
