🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <776@auto-trol.UUCP>, marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky)
writes:
> 
>     Audio Extension, Display Postscript Extension, Image Extension, PEX 
>     Extension .....
>     I believe we are at the point to reevaluate what are the extensions 
>     for. Otherwise, the whole idea of the network transparency
>     will disappear in myriad of extensions, each available on one server
>     but not the others

You have a good point, in that too many extensions is probably not a
good idea.  I think, however, that no extensions is also not a good
idea.  Extensions provide powerful features that are generally
inefficient or impossible to implement in the client.  Of course,
servers that do not support the extensions will not be able to
interoperate with clients requiring them, but there are lots of other
reasons a client will not work with a given server.  Some servers won't
have access to enough memory or to the right networks.  Some won't be
fast enough or have large enough screens.  Others won't support the
necessary visuals.  That's life.  The workstation market is not a
commodity market.

Limiting extensions to those that provide really useful functionality
is probably a good idea.  Making the specifications to the extensions
open so that anyone can use them is another good idea.  I think all the
extensions mentioned above (except the audio extension, which I don't
think anyone is really working on now anyway) are useful ideas with open
specifications.  PostScript is a de facto standard.  PEX is an
implementation of an ANSI standard.  The image extension is still being
studied, but there's probably a goal to make it compatible with the
developing ANSI standard.  The author of the X11R4 image extension
proposal is also chair of the ANSI image processing standards
committee.  I think extensions do have a place in the X world.

Ken Lee
DEC Western Software Laboratory, Palo Alto, Calif.
Internet: klee@wsl.dec.com
uucp: uunet!decwrl!klee