Re: Various comments, mostly on Implementation Notes

On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, John Harper wrote:

> Julian Adams writes:
> |> 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 ?
> How about:
> Window Movement
> ===============
> Window manager implementors should refer to the ICCCM for definitive
> specifications of how to handle MapRequest and ConfigureNotify events.
> However, since these aspects of the ICCCM are easily misread, this
> document offers the following clarifications:
>  - Window managers MUST honour the win_gravity field of WM_NORMAL_HINTS
>    for both MapRequest _and_ ConfigureNotify events [1]
>  - Applications are free to change their win_gravity setting at any time
>  - When generating synthetic ConfigureNotify events, the position given
>    MUST be the top-left corner of the client window in relation to the
>    origin of the root window (i.e., ignoring win_gravity) [2]
> [1] ICCCM Version 2.0, and 4.1.5
> [2] ICCCM Version 2.0, 4.2.3
> These are the things I was confused about, anyway; does anything else
> need to be added?

well, that cares of the response, but what exactly happens if
an app (r third party app like a pager) issues XMoveWindow (w, x, y);
does w end up at x,y or does it's frame end up at x,y. that's the
one thing i want certainty about ;)

> |
> |It would be a disaster if afterstep, kwin, sawfish, blackbox etc.
> |implemented differing versions of the spec, but all posted the same
> |_NET_SUPPORTED hints.
> Agreed.
> 	John


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