Re: Various comments, mostly on Implementation Notes

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)


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