RandR 1.3 additions?

[Luc Verhaegen]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:20:43PM -0500, Alex Deucher wrote:
> 
> Believe it or not lots of people (including myself) have been thinking
> about multi-head abstraction for quite a while, often independently.
> It's awful presumptuous to say you are the origin of the "output"
> concept.

There's vast irclogs, which i am quite happy to produce, and quite 
significant pieces of code (feel free to look at the unichrome 
history) to back this up, while there was very little involvement from 
your side at the time.

There's a two talks, with crap slides, which happened at a time when the 
current X drivers were supposed to die in favour of kdrive, and which as 
such got rather little feedback.

> Where do you get original?  Just because you think output meant
> encoder doesn't mean that's the "standard" understanding.  A randr
> output is vague at best.  It' just as reasonable to associate output
> with connector as to associate output with encoder.  As it's used in
> randr, "output" seems to fit connector better than encoder.  It more
> or less signifies a monitor, something that plugs into a connector.

This is something only you have adopted, recently.

Luc Verhaegen.
SUSE/Novell X Driver Developer.