Re: true transparency

[Michael ROGERS <M Rogers cs ucl ac uk>]

>I thought the shape extensions were only for the outside of the window?
>I know you can have a round window, for example, but I didn't think you
>could do a donut shape.Making a shape from the text of a terminal would
>therefor be impossible!

wm2's borders have a hole in the middle (using the Shape extension).

>If X got alpha support, all those problems would go away, you'd just
>declare an area transparent using an alpha channel.

This is definitely the best solution, but could alpha support be implemented
in X? I'm not sure if it could be done as an extension like shaped windows -
the whole concept of exposure would be broken.

>However, I agree that 'true transparency' would be a complete nightmare in
>anything other than small, shaped apps. In terminals etc, you'd never be
>able to see what was on top of what, or what would get the focus when you
>clicked on or hovered over it! 

The window on top would get focus - with alpha support you wouldn't have the
problem of the mouse having to be over the text that you would get with a
shaped window.

>It would only lead to brainache!

Only if you stacked up a load of transparent windows - so you wouldn't.

>Don't get me wrong, I use psuedo transparent Eterms all the time, but I'm
>sure 'true' transparency would be hell.

Nah, it would be great!  ;p


Michael Rogers