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

[John Harper <john dcs warwick ac uk>]

Bradley T. Hughes writes:
|> 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.

I was a bit confused, I thought that the draft currently has
_NET_WM_STATE as an integer, but it's a list.

However, in your original message listing the changes you made [1] you
did change _NET_WM_STATE to be an integer.

So I don't understand your statement above - what did you indend 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.

No, obviously you can implement whatever you want. But if your
implementation extends the standard in incompatible ways, then that's
just going to cause problems in the future,

	John


[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2000-June/msg00000.html