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

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

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, John Harper wrote:

> Bradley T. Hughes writes:
> |This same argument could hold true for the _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE
> |property.  If making an extension to the _NET_WM_STATE property is in
> |violation of the spec, then so is extending _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE.  Which
> |means the using the list for extensibility is pointless, because specific
> |extensions are disallowed.
> 
> But the whole point of allowing _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE to be a list of
> atoms is to allow safe extension (either local extension, or adding
> more _NET_ window types at a later date)
>
> obviously it's impossible to locally extend a set of flags encoded as
> bits in an integer since you have the problem of allocating the bits
> and avoiding clashes
> 
> So I would argue that _NET_WM_STATE should also be a list of atoms, for
> the same reasons. You could then add your local _KDE_STAYS_ON_TOP hint
> without any problems. (isn't this how the Open Look hints work?)

Which is exactly what I intended to do.  Like I said... regardless of what
this list says, my implementation will have StaysOnTop functionality.  You
seemed to indicate that this wasn't allowed.

> But I suspect you won't like this, so I'm not going to push it..

--
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