Re: fltk and XForms compliance
On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 12:57:00PM +0200, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17, 1998 at 09:48:42AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > That will be a problem with lyx as the upstream side is thinking about a
> > switch anyway, but qt is the leading candidate there.
> I got the impression that KLyX is a forked version, and that the LyX
> maintianers are trying to make clean up the code to make it less dependent
> on a particular GUI toolkit. Can someone confirm/deny this?
I can't confirm/deny this, but I got the same impression from the LyX
mailing list. The LyX developers want to make the next (or one of the
next) major release to be GUI toolkit independent, so people can use
GTK, Qt, XForm, or whatever they like.
The original author of LyX, Matthias E. (?), who started it all, seems
to prefer KDE and/or Qt. He's probably part of the core KDE Team and
so he and others developed KLyX as a proof-of-concept I guess.
There was some discussions on the LyX Mailing List about that a while ago.
Some LyX Team developers were not happy of the fork and duplication of
effort, but I guess they worked out their differences at the end. :-)
BTW, the above is my very-biased summary because I didn't read all the
messages in the mailing list. :-) And it has been quite a while since
I last read the mailing list. :-)
Anthony Fok Tung-Ling Civil and Environmental Engineering
email@example.com University of Alberta, Canada
firstname.lastname@example.org Keep smiling! *^_^*
Come visit Our Lady of Victory Camp -- http://olvc.home.ml.org/
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org