On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 13:29, Willie Walker wrote:
> > 1) use the existing CSPI bindings and link to libspi/libcspi  
> > (pulling in
> > the GNOME stuff in anticipation that the dependencies incurred will be
> > reduced over time - and help us reduce them).  This would make the  
> > "KDE"
> > ATs use the shared backend when we as a community are ready to  
> > migrate,
> > or an alternate backend when one is available); or
> >
> > 2) use the AT-SPI python bindings, or have KDE AT developers write in
> > Python.
> 
> IMO, the AT-SPI Python bindings are the AT-SPI IDL itself.  That is,  
> one can speak "pure" AT-SPI IDL via PyBonobo, which is something I  
> prefer.  In Orca, we try to restrict this to a single python module  
> as much as possible, but I think there would still be a significant  
> setback if the use of IDL were dropped.

Yes, speaking "pure" AT-SPI IDL is what I was suggesting.  Though the
bindings may be called PyBonobo, there isn't much bonobo-fied about it
that I am aware of.  The client APIs just look like a direct mapping of
the AT-SPI IDL to python (as they should).

please correct me if I am wrong, Will

Bill

> 
> Will
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kde-accessibility mailing list
> kde-accessibility@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-accessibility

_______________________________________________
kde-accessibility mailing list
kde-accessibility@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-accessibility