My comments on 1.9b

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.



    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?


    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


    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. (?)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]