4 ms·
If that was the case... Why would those same people be putting forward protocols to implement? Why do they have to fight for Wayland just to say no? Wayland is
by shakna 9mo ago
If that was the case... Why would those same people be putting forward protocols to implement? Why do they have to fight for Wayland just to say no?
Wayland is the gutter sink here. Nobody else. Everyone else has done what they can, and continue to do what they can. Wayland has said no to the very interfaces you claim need to be implemented - they already have been.
- sylware 9mo agoWhat are you even talking about? Since wayland is purely discoverable and dynamic at runtime, you do not need the 'wayland people' to start to do anything. I could tomorrow start to design my own set of 'wayland interfaces for spy agencies' in order to provide wayland clients a way to spy on all other applications and even on what the compositor is doing, and why not implement some super ultra giga user interactions that specific to accessibility. Then I could pick up GTK+ mutter, branch it, and start to dev the modules implementing such set of interfaces. Since wayland is actually "x12", if starting anew, this is even a good opportunity for ATK/AT-SPI people to remove the non pertinent legacy burden, aka do some cleanup passes. And you say those interface were already designed and implemented why are you whining about?
- shakna 9mo ago> Since wayland is actually "x12", if starting anew, this is even a good opportunity for ATK/AT-SPI people to remove the non pertinent legacy burden, aka do some cleanup passes. So... You don't know a thing about what you're talking about? AT-SPI is a _standard_ not an _implementation_. There is no legacy cruft to remove. So how about you either go build what you've already been shown can't be built, or just... Stop talking about accessibility look you understand either it or Wayland?