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

[Linux Hebrew] Re: Standard for plug-in modules for application software?



Hello Eli Marmor,
You are being excused from having to read or contribute to those
sick Hebrew support in Linux discussions.  For your convenience,
I am prefixing the Subject line with "[Linux Hebrew]" so that you'll be
able to filter out my drivel.


Eli Marmor has said thus:

> Well, this discussion already makes me sick...
>
> So many people take part in this discussion through 3 or more
> threads for almost a week, and nobody comments these obvious notes:
>
> 1. Of course there is a standard for multi-lingual layout services,
>    and you don't have to "invent" yet another one. Any Internet
>    newbie, could easily find it by the known search mechanisms of
>    the Internet. It is called "Portable Layout Services" (PLS), and
>    you can find it at:
> 	http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9638399/toc.htm
>    Although it was invented by IBM, it was adopted by almost every
>    one, including The Open Group, Sun, Silicon-Graphics, and many
>    others. Any multi-lingual newbie knows this standard. BTW: Its
>    main motivation was Hebrew.

Apparently there are several Linux-IL participants who are less
than Internet newbies, because no one, except Eli Marmor, seems to
have been aware of the PLS standard, including those who are actively
and quietly developing Hebrew-friendly text widgets.

Another question, are the specs "open source" i.e. is it legal to
implement GPLed software which adheres to those specs?

> 3. The main motivation of this method (of having a "Standard for
>    plug-in modules" for multi-lingual support), is to have a
>    standard algorithm through differnt GUI toolkit and different
>    platforms. So if we do it, it must be compatible with something
>    valuable.

Wrong.  The main motivation is to allow people to "plug in" their
favorite layout algorithm and make any application, which uses
text editing widgets (except perhaps for professional quality
word processors and typesetting systems), capable of laying out
text in whatever way they want.

It is further desirable that all applications and all toolkits be able
to interface with the same set of plugins, so that people who need
both Motif, GTK, Gnome, KDE, WordPerfect, whatever - won't need
to develop or keep a separate set of plugins for each system.

>   ... At least Unicode (though I believe that in order to
>    allow Windows users to migrate to Linux, it must be 100%
>    compliant with MS BiDi algorithm).

I want people to be able to choose between several Hebrew layout
plugins.  Some of them will be 100% compatible with the various
Microsoft BiDi algorithms.  Others will be compatible with Unicode
and other algorithms.

>  ... Otherwise, why wasting time
>    for such a standard?  Just to have a compatibility between Qt and
>    GTK?  I wish that even only one of them had a good Hebrew
>    support...

I want people to be able to use both Qt and GTK applications, without
having to develop (or use) separate sets of layout plugins for each.

> 4. There is a direct correlation between the level of discussions/
>     noise/blah-blah, and delays in implementation.

With this I agree.  It is said that Linus was used to say:  "Show
the code!".  Also the organization which oversees the Internet standards
development demands a reference implementation before considering
a new standard.

However, the discussion which I am in is in the exploratory stage.
I want to find out what was already done in this area, what is the real
need (in the above I wrote what I want people to have.  You are invited
to tell me that the above is not really needed).

>  ... On the other side,
>    the UNIX camp was so bad in development and implementation, so
>    the UNIX vendors preferred to spend so much time in defining more
>    standards, and creating more groups, etc., and didn't have time
>    for development.

Hopefully, the "Linux camp" will do better than the "UNIX camp".

> 5. There is a direct correlation between standards and low quality.
>    I can give you many examples, but instead of going far, just take
>    PLS (mentioned above) and any toolkit which is based on it, and
>    test its quality. For example, CTL crashes more frequently than
>    anything else I know, when it doesn't crash - it smears/smashes
>    characters on each other, and usually it just doesn't do
>    anything. Not because PLS is bad, but because separating the
>    process into two separate parts has a cost. For having a separate
>    module, you pay by lower quality; You must decide if you are
>    willing to pay this cost.

The model of which I was thinking was to learn from the example
of Linux kernel modules (was there any reduction in reliability or
performance after people started modularizing the kernel?).

I also want people who actually develop text widgets to tell us
what services they need from a plugin module.

>    In any case, before running and developing Hebrew support for all
>    the toolkits (GTK, QT, XForms, fltk, lesstif - to name only a
>    few), it may be wiser to wait a little more and see who is the
>    winner; I am quite sure, that at least in the front of GTK and Qt
>    we are going to face some surprises in the near future (don't ask
>    me who will win; I don't have any idea...).

No.  I believe that several toolkits will coexist for the foreseeable future.
Therefore, we need an interface, which will let all those toolkits support
Hebrew (and other languages with exotic text layout requirements)
at very little additional cost.

> Summary: You should not want a standard plug-in module for layout. If
> you still want it, there is already one.

Again, is it OK to develop GPLed software based upon the existing
standard?  Why didn't GTK and Qt people already incorporate it in
their text widgets?

> And if you want to invent
> your own one, at least do it cleverly.

I don't see how this can be done cleverly without learning what
other people already know about the subject.
                                                                           --- Omer
WARNING:  by sending me unsolicited commercial/religious/political/M@ilPush
E-mail (known also as "spam") you irrevocably agree to pay me US$500.-
(plus any legal fees incurred by my trying to collect the above amount) per
unsolicited commercial/religious/political/M@ilPush E-mail message sent
to me - for the service of receiving it.