Re: Decorations (again)

[Paul Warren <pdw ferret lmh ox ac uk>]

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999, Dominik Vogt wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 1999 at 12:30:03PM +0000, M.Rogers@cs.ucl.ac.uk wrote:
> > >> The below layer should be reserved desktop icons and named "desktop". If
> > >> we need a layer for normal windows that stay below other windows, we
> > >> need both "desktop" and "below" IMO.
> > >
> > >Indeed, there is a difference between "desktop" and "below".  Desktop
> > >means desktop features.  "Below" is normal windows that stay below other
> > >windows, but above the desktop.
> > 
> > Now I'm confused. I thought you agreed that we only needed three layers.
> > 
> > BTW I agree with Marko that the bottom layer should be called "desktop" to
> > avoid confusion.  ;)
> 
> Yes, I thought at least this was a common consensus.  Didn't we agree that
> 'below' and 'ontop' layers were unnecessary in the spec.  Although you
> might want to place an application on top but not on the dock layer, this
> is nothing an application can request via the spec, right?

I think it should be.  Suppose I want my CD player to always be on top,
everytime I start it.  There will an option in its preferences that allow
it to specify this on startup.  Similarly for Omni-present.  Otherwise the
WM has to remember the geometry and on-top status of every application it
has ever seen.  I know that Window Maker does something along these lines,
but it has always struck me as a bit of an ugly workaround...

Note, I am not talking about apps started under Session Management, where
it is undoubtedly the window manager's responsibility to remember such
things.

Paul