My comments on 1.9b
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: My comments on 1.9b
- Date: 26 Oct 1999 15:56:09 -0400
Since everybody else is getting into the act, I thought
I should type up my notes I made while reading the
spec a while ago.
* We should replace the MWM hints completely. They were
never formally specified. Window managers would presumably
honor the MWM hints in the case where the new hints
were not set.
* Several places comments in the spec worry about bit fields
not being extensible without changing the spec. I don't see this
as a problem - window managers should not add to these
fields in a non-standard fashion.
* _NET_CLIENT_LIST _NET_CLIENT_LIST_STACKING:
What is the interpretation of these properties with respect
to windows on multiple desktops? Are windows on all desktops
listed? What is "STACKING" order for windows on different desktops?
* _NET_NUMBER_OF_DESKTOPS _NET_DESKTOP_GEOMETRY:
The ability for a client to change the number of desktops
insert/delete desktops or change desktop geometry seems like a
bad idea. There are a lot of unresolved questions about
what happens to client windows on a deleted desktop or area.
This strikes me as being more WM configuration then something
a client should care about.
What is an "active" window? How does this differ from
focused window? What does "activating" a window on a
different desktop mean since you can't give it the
input focus? Should WM implementations switch desktops?
What is the rational for needing this?
How does the "MOVE" part of this work?
There probably should be the ability to not specify
a resize direction. (Many window managers have some
way of starting a resize other than dragging on the
* _NET_WM_LAYER: DESKTOP.
Unless the spec is going to _mandate_ the use of a huge
file manager bg window (pissing some WM authors off),
the use of this layer for shaped desktop icons should be
mentioned as well.
There are some alternative ways, such as queueing to get
the performance increase without causing the complexity
overhead. Is this really needed?
6. File Manager desktop
IMO, this should be left out of the initial spec since there is
not a consensus on this issue. (?)
] [Thread Prev