From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gtk scrollbar: thumb too short Date: 02 Apr 2003 13:42:59 +0900 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <20030325193739.ZGIN3924.fep01-svc.swip.net@gaffa.gaia.swipnet.se> <3E8345E8.4090509@swipnet.se> <1048872463.17161.132.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1049134327.3326.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200304020330.h323Ugi11623@eel.dms.auburn.edu> <200304020429.h324TOP11647@eel.dms.auburn.edu> Reply-To: Miles Bader NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1049258748 30930 80.91.224.249 (2 Apr 2003 04:45:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 04:45:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 02 06:45:46 2003 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 190a8A-00082i-00 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 06:45:46 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 190a94-0002IG-00 for ; Wed, 02 Apr 2003 06:46:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 190a6t-0007lW-03 for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:44:27 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 190a6P-0006vE-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:43:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 190a60-0005Zv-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:43:33 -0500 Original-Received: from tyo202.gate.nec.co.jp ([202.32.8.202]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 190a5u-0005G8-00; Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:43:27 -0500 Original-Received: from mailgate4.nec.co.jp ([10.7.69.195])h324h4U25031; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:43:04 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: (from root@localhost) by mailgate4.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILGATE-NEC) id h324h4R24788; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:43:04 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from edtmg02.lsi.nec.co.jp ([10.26.16.202]) by mailsv.nec.co.jp (8.11.6/3.7W-MAILSV-NEC) with ESMTP id h324h3925345; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:43:03 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcsss2.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (localhost [127.0.0.1]) NAA20497; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:43:02 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: from mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (mcspd15 [10.30.114.174]) with ESMTP id h324h0NH003882; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:43:00 +0900 (JST) Original-Received: by mcspd15.ucom.lsi.nec.co.jp (Postfix, from userid 31295) id 9B96C3724; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 13:42:59 +0900 (JST) Original-To: Luc Teirlinck System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop In-Reply-To: <200304020429.h324TOP11647@eel.dms.auburn.edu> Original-Lines: 25 Original-cc: rms@gnu.org Original-cc: jan.h.d@swipnet.se Original-cc: otaylor@redhat.com Original-cc: kai.grossjohann@uni-duisburg.de X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:12833 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:12833 Luc Teirlinck writes: > I think that if this is the worry, it's groundless, because the emacs > extensions are just that -- extensions, which extrapolate existing > behavior, not really arbitrary differences in details, which is the > usual case of problems arising with lookalike implemenations. > > It is a little bit more complicated than that. The Emacs behavior > would be an alternative behavior, not an extension. My claim is that in practice, this doesn't matter, because they're `close enough.' Users will gain far more from exploiting the similarity in behavior than they'll lose by being confused over the differences. That, and my desire for a consistent look (which I think is very common) between applications, are why I say that emacs should definitely use GTK scrollbars, not something gratuitously funky-looking just to make the point that there's a difference. I suppose emacs could use a GTK scrollbar with the text `THIS IS NOT A GTK SCROLLBAR' emblazoned in the trough... :-) -Miles -- P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false, for reasons of military security.