Re: Quick question about spec
- From: Matthias Ettrich <ettrich troll no>
- To: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Quick question about spec
- Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 22:02:03 +0100
> 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).
This is an interesting topic, I'm still not sure what is right here. Currently
twm and kwm do it one way, mwm, fvwm probably E do it the other. That's bad.
What I don't like about moving windows to the actual coordinates (i.e.
excluding the window manager frame) is the fact that it introduces a big
difference between non-mapped windows and mapped windows.
Or what's the semantics of xclock -geometry +0+0? I don't think anybody
expects the xlock showing up at (0,0) with its decoration frame being outside
the visible area of the screen.
Any good arguments for one or the other solution? Is ICCCM really that clear
on the topic? (twm still behaves differently).
Whatever we do, I agree we might add it to the specs to clearify ICCCM in that
] [Thread Prev