Re: ICCCM breakage, IconicState, and desktops

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 02:19:12AM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Sasha Vasko <sasha aftercode net> writes:
> > One ought to use virtual roots when implementing virtual desktops.
> > 
> There are advantages to doing them via unmaps instead, IMO. So the WM
> spec definitely should not prohibit that approach.
> However we need to make explicit that the current spec allows this
> ICCCM violation, and that we have equated IconicState with "minimized"
> instead of "unmapped" and broken the invariants given in the ICCCM. I
> think we decided to make that explicit last time the topic came up,
> but I never put the patch into the document.

I do not understand this solution. There is a really simple solution
(_NET_WM_MINIMIZED) to be consistent with the ICCCM. So, why
the wm-spec take the decision to violate it?

Regards, Olivier

BTW where is the wm-spec CVS (:pserver:anonymous ???/??? I imagine the
module name is wm-spec).

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