Re: Various comments, mostly on Implementation Notes

[Julian Adams <julian adams gmx net>]

Tim Janik wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, John Harper wrote:
> 
> > Sasha_Vasko@osca.state.mo.us writes:
> > |Windows in question are those that need to use different gravity.
> > |You can't really force all GTK clients to use Static gravity, and at
> > |the same time, most of them will want to save their position for later use.
> >
> > Thanks, I see the problem now.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be possible to initially map the window with Static
> > gravity, then change to whatever is required after the first map-notify
> > event has arrived?
> >
> > But I'm not sure why applications need to do this, isn't it better to
> > let the window manager handle _all_ window placement?
> >
> > The only reason given for this so far is so that applications can place
> > themselves at their most recent position. The window manager
> > could/should be responsible for this (at the direction of the user).
> >
> > I've tried to implement something like this in sawfish, but it's
> > limited by the lack of a reliable way to identify which windows are the
> > `same' as previously opened windows. Maybe if we addressed this issue
> > in the wm-spec, then it would not be necessary for applications to care
> > about saving and restoring their position..?
> 
> this is not only an application-positioning-itself issue. in fact, the
> respective clause was added to the wm spec because i brought the issue
> up for deskguide. currently the user has to configure deskguide so it
> can tell whether the window manager moves the application windows to
> a specified position, or does so for the frame window.
> back then i suggested an global property set by the window manager
> to indicate whether it does icccm compliant moves or not, but the
> general consensus was reached, that, rather than recommending the
> maintenance of a flag indicating icccm movement compliance, we should
> simple recommend icccm compliant behaviour and be done with that.
> 
Reading back on this thread it seems that it started because the current
WM_SPEC notes contradict the ICCCM and furthermore that the propsed
behaviour in the spec is not sensible. 

IF this is what you guys are syaing then we really need someone to
propose a solution. I can patch changes into the spec - but technically
I'm not qualified to come up with a solution :)

> > |
> > |rxvt -g -100-100
> > |and then change font size in it: Shift+Gray+, Shift+Gray-
> >
> > I can't work out how to get it to change size, what's Shift+Gray+ ?
> 
> well, at least for xterm, you can change font sizes with ctrl+button3
> 
> >
> >       John
> >
> 
> ---
> ciaoTJ
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wm-spec-list mailing list
> wm-spec-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list

jools