Hi, On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 02:49:29PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote: > On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 23:54:54 +0100, > Emile van Bergen <emile-deb@evbergen.xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > Put in some good graphics commands, for drawing and blitting in > > arbitrary buffers, managing views to those buffers, defining clickable > > and draggable areas that send certain codes to the host when > > manipulated. > > sounds like SDL That's an API, not a terminal protocol. > > I think that such a concept, if done > > well, could possibly beat X, VNC, Citrix, Terminal Server and HTTP+HTML > > both for exporting GUI applications on the network and using them > > locally, because commands can be very high level, > > You mean "low level" here? "Blit this (x1, y1, x2, y2) rectangle" is > not a very high level command. No, but if there is a command for that, then another output extension can build on it to implement a command that draws push buttons, and another input/output extension can build on /that/ to press and depress the button based on user input and send strings back to the host (or to the terminal input, so that it can cause a scroll bar to be moved a result of activating an arrow button, etc.) Hence high level: the host application can ask for widgets to be placed, implemented by extensions (eg. extension nr. 3 is "basic widgets"), and receive data from the widget whenever it wants. > > without forcing a restrictive document model (HTML) on you. > > If you need full control over every pixel of the screen, .png is the > right thing, not .html . True. But what is the right thing if you want to control a GUI, preferrably at the widget level? Not X, not PNG, not HTML. We simply don't have a protocol for that yet, only big fat APIs that are not even APIs but "APFs", application programming frameworks (yuck). Cheers, Emile. -- E-Advies / Emile van Bergen | emile@e-advies.info tel. +31 (0)70 3906153 | http://www.e-advies.info
Attachment:
pgpwFCSivwddQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature