Re: [gtk-devel-list] Design decisions for GLib and GTK+ on Win32

[mpsuzuki hiroshima-u ac jp]

Hi,

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:33:13 +0300
Tor Lillqvist <tml iki fi> 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