Re: WM-SPEC - what needs to happen for release ?

["Bradley T. Hughes" <bhughes trolltech com>]

On Thu, 21 Sep 2000, John Harper wrote:

> Bradley T. Hughes writes:
> |> I think the differences were in _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE and another similar
> |> property (spec defines these as vectors of atoms, KDE implementation
> |> has them as integers). A few days ago someone tried sawfish with the
> |> KDE2 beta and ran into problems due to this (sawfish includes a
> |> prototype implementation of the current spec)
> |
> |and as i recall... this was discussed but never resolved... perhaps now is
> |the time
> 
> Definitely -- is there any possibility that you will change your
> implementation to match the current state of the spec?

Well... a binary incompatible change to KDE2 just before a release would
upset quite a few people.  A very good, convincing argument over why a
list of atoms is more desirable than an enumerated value would have to be
presented.  The argument that the list can be extended in the future also
holds true for an enumerated value. The argument that a list lets the
window specify a "fallback" if the window manager doesn't support a
particular extension isn't a very good one either.  How many extensions
will there be? Who's responsible for registering/adding them with/to the
spec?  A fallback list like this:

dancing-window -> menu -> spinning-dock -> dialog -> toolbar -> normal

is quite possible, and quite riduculous if you ask me.  If the window
manager doesn't support the specified enum, it should default to a normal
window.

> Does anyone else have strong opinions about this?
> 
> (I prefer the list-of-atoms approach, but I'd rather get the standard
> finished than waste time arguing about this relatively minor issue)

A minor issue that can save *lots* of headaches.

--
Bradley T. Hughes <bhughes trolltech com>
Waldemar Thranes gt. 98B N-0175 Oslo, Norway
Office: +47 21 60 48 92
Mobile: +47 92 01 97 81