Re: Various comments, mostly on Implementation Notes

John Harper wrote:
> 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).

Could one of you guys rough this out - I have no idea what the exact
ICCCM mandated behaviour is. Perhaps more importantly - would this
compromise any other aspect of the WM-SPEC integrity ?

btw the initial posted black-box/kwin implementation of the spec varied
from the spec in some areas. Some of this has been revised in the spec,
but some of it hasn't. Is there a revised implementation now ? 

It would be a disaster if afterstep, kwin, sawfish, blackbox etc.
implemented differing versions of the spec, but all posted the same

> IIRC at least twm, afterstep, kwin and sawfish do this how the ICCCM
> requires..? (some of these have only been changed very recently)
>         John
> _______________________________________________
> wm-spec-list mailing list

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