Re: wine's fullscreen code has no effect on metacity

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> So, all the checks metacity does for window decorations and window size are
> contradicting the spec IMO.

Both the ICCCM and EWMH are specs for "hints" - they have a big "any of 
these hints may be ignored" disclaimer attached.

In practice, categorically ignoring (or misinterpreting) the hints would 
result in an unusable WM, but so would blindly following them all. Most 
real window managers are pretty complex with lots of special cases and 
"magic" to support legacy apps or whatever.

We used to have a "strict spec compliance"/"disable workarounds" mode in 
metacity and it was unusable unless you ran GTK/Qt apps exclusively, 
pretty much.

While my memory is too fuzzy to point to specific bugs, I'd be willing 
to bet that I added more than one little hack inspired by WINE, which 
used to be unaware of EWMH and perhaps a bit sketchier than Qt/GTK on 
the older ICCCM behaviors too.

Anyway, few WM bugs can be resolved by appeal to specifications alone...

> Also the fact that a window isn't resizeable means only that it's not 
> supposed
> to be resizeable by a user, still allowing to resize it programmatically.

In practice the geometry hints are widely treated as strict constraints 
honored for all configure requests from any source. Most WMs ignore them 
at least sometimes though, e.g. ignoring the size increments when 
maximizing is a common choice.

If nothing else, in modern desktops it's quite hard to tell which 
configure requests are user-originated and which are not.

Havoc