Re: Various comments, mostly on Implementation Notes

[John Harper <john dcs warwick ac uk>]

Julian Adams writes:
|> 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. 

That's how I understand it.. (not sure about the sensible part)

|
|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 :)

I think we should remove that section from the spec, and possibly
replace it with a clear explanation of the ICCCM-required behaviour
(since this is often misunderstood).

IIRC at least twm, afterstep, kwin and sawfish do this how the ICCCM
requires..? (some of these have only been changed very recently)

	John