[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Fwd: Re: [PuTTY] : status

For completeness - got this reply from Simon.

 - Nadim

--- Simon Tatham <anakin pobox com> wrote:
> From: Simon Tatham <anakin pobox com>
> To: Nadim Shaikli <shaikli yahoo com>
> Subject: Re: [PuTTY] : status
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:47:42 +0100
> Nadim Shaikli <shaikli yahoo com> wrote:
> > Simply put, I think what Simon is asking for is for Putty to be
> > completely self-reliant in regards to this issue.  In other words,
> > Putty should handle its own Bidi and its own Shaping and not rely
> > on Windows and uniscript
> Definitely, yes. If nothing else, relying on Windows technologies
> would be a nightmare if we ever get round to porting PuTTY to other
> platforms!
> > So why does this "school of thought" think so -- after all most of those
> > guys are very bright, accomplished people.  Simple really -- its not
> > something they use or need themselves and thus resort to simply forgoing
> > looking into the issue and opt to throw it overboard and make it someone
> > else's problem (rightfully or not) -- and I don't mean any disrespect
> > to anyone.
> Well, I did mention a couple of concrete reasons apart from that ...
> but yes, I'm not trying to argue that you _shouldn't_ be doing this.
> I'm just trying to get some idea of what the issues are on both
> sides of the argument, because so far all I've seen is two groups of
> websites stating contradictory opinions and neither one
> acknowledging the existence of the other.
> Cheers,
> Simon
> -- 
> Simon Tatham         "_shin_, n. An ingenious device for
> <anakin pobox com>    finding tables and chairs in the dark."

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup