Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!ames!sgi!decwrl!asente From: asente@decwrl.dec.com (Paul Asente) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Should NIST adopt the Xt Intrinsics? (long) Keywords: xt intrinsics NIST NBS FIPS Message-ID: <1702@bacchus.dec.com> Date: 18 Aug 89 04:34:50 GMT References: <272@nap1.cds.wpafb.af.mil> Organization: DEC Western Software Lab Lines: 25 In article <272@nap1.cds.wpafb.af.mil> staatsvr@asd.wpafb.af.mil (Vern Staats) writes: >5) There seem to be a few differences between the X Consortium intrinsics > and those provided by DEC. I assume other vendors have "enhanced" their > intrinsics as well to provide extensions, better performance, etc. The > departures from the Consortium's intrinsics do not appear to have had > much impact on applications portability; I can't recall seeing any > questions on comp.windows.x regarding problems arising from differing > intrinsics. Am I correct in assuming that most vendors will have little > difficulty producing compliant applications, even if they normally use > extended intrinsics? All these different versions (at last all that I know of) are converging gloriously in R4. R3 was the first real release of the intrinsics; it had some problems, most of which will be addressed in R4. R4 is fully source compatible with R3, both for widgets and applications, is binary compatible for sources (i.e. you don't have to recompile to relink), and is even binary compatible for widgets if you've been sufficiently careful. >6) I've heard that the X Consortium and X/Open are both opposed to > standardizing on the intrinsics at R3 and even at R4. Is this true? I can't speak for X/Open, but it's certainly not true for the X Consortium. -paul asente asente@decwrl.dec.com decwrl!asente