Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru writes:
This follows the way how it's done for other device capabilities.
It's not clear that this makes sense, a metafile is capable of doing all these things even if the device cannot. Have you verified this on a device that doesn't have all the caps?
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
This follows the way how it's done for other device capabilities.
It's not clear that this makes sense, a metafile is capable of doing all these things even if the device cannot. Have you verified this on a device that doesn't have all the caps?
I'd expect you asked that question to the person adding these caps in the first place. I just did what's already done with for textcaps and rastercaps which is quite straightforward.
Dmitry Timoshkov dmitry@baikal.ru writes:
Alexandre Julliard julliard@winehq.org wrote:
This follows the way how it's done for other device capabilities.
It's not clear that this makes sense, a metafile is capable of doing all these things even if the device cannot. Have you verified this on a device that doesn't have all the caps?
I'd expect you asked that question to the person adding these caps in the first place. I just did what's already done with for textcaps and rastercaps which is quite straightforward.
Returning capabilities matching what metafiles can do makes sense to me, returning caps from an unrelated device doesn't. Of course Windows isn't known for doing things that make sense, but I'd still like to see a test case.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Dmitry Timoshkov