Re: ICCCM breakage, IconicState, and desktops

----- Original Message -----
From: "Olivier Chapuis" <olivier chapuis free fr>
To: <wm-spec-list gnome org>
Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2001 4:46 AM
Subject: 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?

Not really simple. Firstly that does not resolve the problem with ambiguous
state of unmapped windows, since there is sugnificant number of applications
out there that relay on ICCCM compliant IconicState, so even if you unmap
window without setting _NET_WM_MINIMIZED, they will still consider self
iconifyed and start animating its icon window, instead of normal one.

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