On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Udo Richter <udo_richter@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> This is mostly what the VDR skin interface already provides: A >>> semantically structured description of the interface. Most skins >>> translate this into a bitmapped OSD view, but they don't have to. The >>> skincurses plugin for example uses the text console. VDR itself never >>> uses the OSD directly, only through the two standard skins. >> >> That only works if the default vdr menu layout (i.e. a simple >> name:value list) fits your needs. >> If you need a different layout you have to draw directly to the osd >> (with the side effect that the skincurses plugin won't work). > > Sure. But as I said: VDR only uses the skin interface. Plugins do use > the OSD directly, but currently expect it to be bitmapped. Vectorized > structures could be provided by custom skins using plugin-to-plugin > communications. > > IMHO a bitmapped interface is a good compromise of flexibility and > simplicity, while vectorized systems tend to be quite complex. (think of > XUL (mozilla) or XAML (microsoft).) > > However, there's no reason why, for example, a plugin like text2skin > could not provide advanced rendering to other plugins. If support for a high res/color OSD is present in the VDR core, why would you need a plugin to provide anything to any other plugin? Unless you mean a plugin that handles different ways of supplying the OSD such as the different techniques previously mentioned (xml, html, etc etc)? _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
