Re: Quick question about spec

On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Paul Warren wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Julian Adams wrote:
> > Hi all - as a lurker on the list I've follow the development of the spec
> > from day one, and the initial thought of *yes this is the start of things
> > hanging together on the desktop* has stayed with me the whole time. It seems
> > the current draft is accepted by everyone. 
> Pretty much, yes.  There were a handful of things that need to be tidied
> up on the current version, but I haven't had time to write them up, and
> nobody else has been keen to do it.  
> There was also the suggestion that the write-up of the draft needed a
> reorganisation to be more readble / understandable.
> I should have some time after Tuesday.  I will take a stab at doing the
> first bit - fixing the final details, but I really don't have the time or
> motivation to rewrite entirely as I think the intended audience is
> sufficiently specialised and technical to understand it in its current
> form.

ok paul.

first, if you need help on specific sections, tell me, i'll give you
a hand where possible. then i've just skimmed over the last mails
again, and there were quite a bunch of wording corrections suggested
for the latest revision. do you need help in recollecting those items
and integrating them?
then there were still some outstanding issues from december, i.e. the
last todo you posted:

> I have a todo list of things that I intended to put in, but have not had
> time to write up.  Mostly these are suggestions/reminders from Tim Janik:

i think that one is still outstanding, what about:


A property to be set on window manager windows that serve as a new root window,
by covering the real root window entirely entirely for a specific viewport or
desktop, and by having application windows reparented to them. (This is often
used for virtual desktop implementations by window managers.)

> o _NET_WM_HANDLED_ICONS - set by taskbar to indicate that there is no need
> for the WM to provide icons for minimised windows.

that's what was meant to replace the old _GNOME_PAGER_ACTIVE property, right?


A property to be set by clients such as taskbars or pagers on their window, to
indicate that the window manager should not provide icons for minimised windows.

s/minimised/iconified/ here?

> o Mandate ICCCM compliant window moves.

ok, i do not know where you want to put this, but to try to come up with
a good recomendatoin (basically reworded from the relevant mails on that topic):

Window Movement

According to the ICCCM, applications should not see unnecessary differences
between running with or without a window manager. Therefore window movements
for already mapped windows, such as ones requested by
XMoveWindow(Display, Window, X, Y) have to move the window Window to the
coordinates (X, Y) and not cause the window's window manager frame window
to end up at (X, Y).

> o Detection of compliant Window Managers - should set a property on WM
> owned window, to avoid stale root window property if the WM dies
> unexpectedly.

yes, that requires only slight changes to the wm identification property.

> o Expand on write up of _NET_ACTIVATE.

what was that for?

> o Context help - implement basic protocol for WM to invoke context help on
> client window.

has anyone suggested an implementation for that at all?

> Paul


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