Re: Quick question about spec

On 17 Feb, Michael ROGERS scribbled:
->  >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.
->  Maybe you could make (0,0) or anything less than (framewidth,frameheight) a
->  special case?
->  >Any good arguments for one or the other solution? Is ICCCM really that clear
->  >on the topic? (twm still behaves differently).
->  Twm's way of doing things is annoying with apps like Netscape that think they
->  know where to put their windows.  :)  Each new window ends up further down and
->  to the right. I don't know if broken apps are a good reason to break the
->  window manager too, but Netscape is pretty widely used...

I know.. i've gotten this complaint often enufh.. netscape always wants
ot be put at 10,10... and well E obeys - people complain... i tell them
to use E's positioning overrides. it's a shame boken apps can persist
for so long...

->  >Whatever we do, I agree we might add it to the specs to clearify ICCCM in that
->  >respect.
->  Definitely.
->  Michael

--------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" --------------------
The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler)

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