Re: Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)

• Previous message: Hubert Figuiere: "Fwd: Re: random differences (was Re: selections and combining characters)"
• In reply to: Hubert Figuiere: "Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Next in thread: Blue Lizard: "Re: Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Next in thread: Tomas Frydrych: "Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Reply: Blue Lizard: "Re: Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

> So you're going to reimplement over a year of debugged work by an i18n
> expert and a bunch of contributors with language-specific expertise,
> instead of working on fixing up the win32 port, which needs to be done
> for GTK itself anyway?

Win32 is not the only non-GTK platform we care about there are a least
3 others, 2 behing already supported, the third one being in progress:
QNX, BeOS and MacOS X.

Hub

• application/pgp-signature attachment: stored

• Next message: Tomas Frydrych: "Re: Pango?"
• Previous message: Hubert Figuiere: "Fwd: Re: random differences (was Re: selections and combining characters)"
• In reply to: Hubert Figuiere: "Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Next in thread: Blue Lizard: "Re: Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Next in thread: Tomas Frydrych: "Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Reply: Blue Lizard: "Re: Fwd: Re: Pango portability (or rather the lack of it)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 25 2002 - 04:41:34 EDT