From otaylor@redhat.com Tue Dec 13 17:04:09 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wm-spec-list@gnome.org Delivered-To: wm-spec-list@gnome.org Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by menubar.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10BF7501D9 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:04:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gnome.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.203 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.301, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from menubar.gnome.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (menubar.gnome.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jw+WHxkDeKNB for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:04:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by menubar.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4327501B3 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:03:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBDH3rfZ008059 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:03:53 -0500 Received: from [10.16.2.75] (dhcp-100-2-75.bos.redhat.com [10.16.2.75]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBDH3qB4024060; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:03:53 -0500 Message-ID: <1323795832.3081.20.camel@lagrange> Subject: Re: Proposing _NET_WM_OPAQUE_REGION From: Owen Taylor To: Philipp Knechtges Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 12:03:52 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4ED0DEF6.5070407@knechtges.com> References: <4ED0DEF6.5070407@knechtges.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.67 on 10.5.11.11 Cc: wm-spec-list@gnome.org X-BeenThere: wm-spec-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Window manager specification List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:04:09 -0000 On Sat, 2011-11-26 at 13:43 +0100, Philipp Knechtges wrote: > Hi folks, > > time has passed since the initial proposal [1] of _NET_WM_OPAQUE_REGION but here > it is finally :) > > Support for it has recently been added to kwin [2] and I hope that more > compositing managers will adapt it. I'm certainly open to adding this to Mutter ... it's a useful addition. + + _NET_WM_OPAQUE_REGION + + +The Client MAY set this property to a list of 4-tuples [x, y, width, height], +each representing a rectangle in window coordinates that is occluding the +background. I think this would be a little clearer as: rectangle in window coordinates which has a fully-opaque alpha value in the window's pixel contents. If the window is drawn by the compositor without adding any transparency, then such a rectangle will occlude whatever is drawn behind it. + Inherent in this definition is that the property information is only +considered to be meaningful if the window is an ARGB visual. This is a pretty obscure sentence .... is the intent here that it's simply informative, not normative? similar to: If the window has an RGB visual rather than an ARGB visual, this property is not typically useful, since the opaque region of a window is exactly the bounding region of the window as set via the shape extension. Which then raises the question of the relationship between this and the shape extension for an ARGB window; since I've rewritten things above to specify things in terms of alpha value in the windows pixel contents, that would imply that: For windows with an ARGB visual, and also a bounding region set via the shape extension, the effective opaque region is given by the intersection of the region set by this property and the bounding region set via the shape extension. > The compositing manager MAY ignore this hint. + + +Rationale: This gives the compositing manager more room for optimizations, e.g. by not +drawing the occluded background. Maybe "occluded portions behind the window." (background to me means root window background) + + Do those edits seem reasonable? - Owen From otaylor@redhat.com Tue Dec 13 19:18:55 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: wm-spec-list@gnome.org Delivered-To: wm-spec-list@gnome.org Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by menubar.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC78750255 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:18:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at gnome.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.203 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.203 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.301, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from menubar.gnome.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (menubar.gnome.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gTl3RBzpjavA for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:18:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by menubar.gnome.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8952A750249 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:18:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBDJIgsM002064 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:18:42 -0500 Received: from [10.16.2.75] (dhcp-100-2-75.bos.redhat.com [10.16.2.75]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBDJIf6m014211; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:18:41 -0500 Message-ID: <1323803921.3081.36.camel@lagrange> Subject: Re: Proposing _NET_WM_OPAQUE_REGION From: Owen Taylor To: Philipp Knechtges Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:18:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4EE7A192.4010409@knechtges.com> References: <4ED0DEF6.5070407@knechtges.com> <1323795832.3081.20.camel@lagrange> <4EE7A192.4010409@knechtges.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.25 Cc: wm-spec-list@gnome.org X-BeenThere: wm-spec-list@gnome.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Window manager specification List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:18:55 -0000 On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 20:03 +0100, Philipp Knechtges wrote: > On Tue 13 Dec 2011 06:03:52 PM CET, Owen Taylor wrote: [...] > > Do those edits seem reasonable? > > > > - Owen > Seems reasonable to me. Feel free to correct the draft accordingly. OK, pushed: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xdg/xdg-specs/commit/?id=6f007183616dd13dc7e1622985a99f3401a4b1f1 - Owen