On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:25:30PM -0800, Nadim Shaikli wrote: > --- Mohammed Elzubeir <elzubeir at arabeyes dot org> wrote: > > from what I understand from PuTTY's authors (search the list > > archives here for previous discussions and threads), they want > > a BiDi implementation that is OS-agnostic. That essentially > > means that whatever MS provides is a no-no. Else, it would > > have been implemented a long time ago ;) > > Really ? Could you please provide some URLs. I can't see why Yes, really. You personally paraphrased Simon's view on this on the list. http://lists.arabeyes.org/archives/developer/2002/June/msg00054.html > Putty would want to do that since it would increase the size > of the currently tiny application for the relative benefit of > a very small audience. I would think it would be more to Putty's > benefit to rely on windows' native bidi calls - but then again, > lots of things don't make sense :-) 2 reasons come to mind. The ability to port putty to different platforms in the future and the attempt to keep putty's behavior _very_ similar to xterm. I also don't think it would make such a significant impact on the size. Regards -- ------------------------------------------------------- | Mohammed Elzubeir | Visit us at: | | | http://www.arabeyes.org/ | | Arabeyes Project | Homepage: | | Unix the 'right' way | http://elzubeir.fakkir.net/ | -------------------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature