Re: Comments on 1.9c
- From: Paul Warren <pdw ferret lmh ox ac uk>
- To: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Comments on 1.9c
- Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:40:15 +0000 (GMT)
On Mon, 6 Dec 1999, Jim Gettys wrote:
> I find the spec not very rigorous: in particular, it isn't clear
> who the players are (wm, client application, panel, etc.),
> and who does what when to whom.
Yes, I think you have a point. It makes the distinction between WM and
client reasonably clear, but doesn't distinguish between a taskbar/pager
client, and an application client. It probably should, for clarity.
> I recommend use of the terminology used in RFC 2119, along with making
> it clear what the responsibility of each class of client is in the
> manipulation of each property. See: ftp://ftp.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc2119.txt
Haven't checked, but I'm guessing that's the MUST, SHOULD, MUST NOT, etc
RFC.
> Aren't some of the "Implementation Notes" at the end really more of an
> introduction to what the protocol is attempting to achieve? Shouldn't
> those become an introduction?
Quite possibly. Some of them are reminders to use the ICCCM, as an
explanation of why certain things are not in the spec, and I think should
be notes at the end.
> Packaging the hints into 2 X properties for performance.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Don't do this!!!!
[...]
> If round trips are a problem to fetch multiple properties, you
> write yourself an Xlib routine to retrieve multiple properties
> in one round trip.
OK, I'll take your word for this. I couldn't find where these properties
were discussed on the mailing list. Does anyone wish to defend their
place in the spec?
> The definition of ARGB image type for icons isn't very clear.
The description could be better, but it's a pretty basic format:
Alpha Red Green Blue values.
> Question:
> is there some existing image format that can be adopted "whole hog" rather
> than introducing another one?
I'm no expert on this, but the ARGB array seems a pretty straight forward
way to do it. I don't think there is any need for the added complication
of some other format.
cheers,
Paul
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]