🚀 go-pugleaf

>                                       However, certainly in the case
> of X, I think that they have made an error in their way of implementing
> the Toolkit libraries. 
>
> X causes the toolkit libraries to be linked in with the application
> code. This causes large applications which are only portable between
> X servers -- fair enough.

X (i.e. the X Protocol) has nothing to do with whether or not a toolkit is
linked into an application.  Also, if one has shared libraries, even
sophisticated applications aren't all that large. 

The X Toolkit was designed to take maximum advantage of the X Window System.
People who want window-system independence, or who aren't running X, will
probably want to choose another toolkit (such as Andrew, STDWIN, etc.) or
design their own.  It all depends on what one's definition of "portability" is,
or more importantly, on what the requirements of the situation are. 


> So, why not add layers of protocols between the application,
> something I will call the "agent" and the window manager?

Ah, motherhood and apple pie!  This "agent" is often called a User Interface 
Management Systems and is rapidly becoming one of the hotter topics for
research and development.  Lots of opportunities for Cognitive Scientists,
Graphic Artists, and even Software Engineers. :-)

Providing a good foundation for building UIMS's was one of the design goals of
the X Toolkit.  There are currently several commercially available UIMS's (e.g.
X-Pression, Open Dialogue, XUI, New Wave, etc.) and I expect to see a flurry of
new announcements over the next year. 


							Jim Fulton
							MIT X Consortium