On Fri, Jun 01, 2001 at 06:50:53AM -0400, Julian Missig wrote: > We (#interface, and you if you care to) are attempting to get these > changes adapted by the dialogs in gtk2 (Which are basically the dialogs > which used to be in gnome-libs). If we fail to do this, then yes, it > would result in something like that. However, I'm no longer going to > want the dialog button order to apply to gnome2 if we fail to get these > changes into gtk2. So basically, we either get it into gtk2 and have a > fairly good chance of convincing other pieces of gnome2 to switch or we > don't and then don't bother. If you can get the gtk people go along with this then I have no objections. Like I said, I can see good and bad points either way. > > It seems to me that perhaps a technical solution would be more > > appropriate: create a more semanticly-capable API in which it is > > possible to say "these are dialog buttons, so they should be arranged > > according to the user's prefs" and switch developers over to that API > > rather than to a hard-coded style. > > I *believe* gtk2/pango handles reversing dialog button order and side > depending on whether the language is left-to-right or right-to-left - I > know it was supposed to, but I haven't confirmed it myself yet. I was under the impression that it reversed everything, which doesn't really solve the problem. Ok, so are we in agreement on most of my document then? The only unresolved issues at this stage that I know about are button order, for which we'll need to consult with the gtk folks before we know what our own position is, and default buttons, which we simply disagree on. Is there anything else in that document that people are unhappy with? For the button order issue, I can simply insert a note on the subject to say that a decision is pending. As for the default buttons, I'm not sure how we resolve that. colin _____________________________ ____ rtnl http://rational.cjb.net c z robertson ndirect co uk icq 13294163
Attachment:
pgpBP2IG4yPnE.pgp
Description: PGP signature