Re: pseudo transparency
- From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
- To: Olivier Chapuis <olivier chapuis free fr>
- Cc: "wm-spec-list gnome org" <wm-spec-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: pseudo transparency
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 11:32:38 -0500 (EST)
Olivier Chapuis <olivier chapuis free fr> writes:
> Yes I was not award that this may be so problematic (some Sasha remarks
> go in the same direction). But what I want is to prevent a bad hack which
> is at the present time the "only way" to implement parental relativity
> (an application should not touch the wm frames).
> Also, I do not want to force all window manager to implement this.
> I thought that _NET_SUPPORTED will be enough for this?
> (the example in the wm-spec for _NET_SUPPORTED concerns the net wm
> states and the wm-spec used only "The Window Manager SHOULD honor
> _NET_WM_STATE" and not "The Window Manager MUST honor_NET_WM_STATE").
_NET_SUPPORTED might be enough, but it's hard on applications since they
have to deal with window managers changing.
I really don't think that trying to use parent-relative backgrounds for
this purpose makes a lot of sense:
* It requires window manager support
* It interferes with the normal operations of window manager which probably
is setting the window background of it's borders for other reasons.
* It doesn't work if you want to shade the terminal background, which
is probably a lot more common than not.
And, most importantly:
* It's not significantly cheaper. There is no need to copy the pixmap
with the _XROOTPMAP_ID either method unless you want to shade, and
with parent-relative pixmaps, you still have clear the window
yourself each time you are moved by the window manager.
Regards,
Owen
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]