On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:48:56AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 08:35:56PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:56:35AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > > - An EWMH compliant application MUST conform to the ICCCM way. > > > - A compliant application MUST set some property of its window to > > > document compliance. > > > - A compliant window manager MUST conform to the ICCCM way when > > > it detects said property on a client window. > > > - If the property is not present on a window the window manager > > > SHOULD use the legacy way as there are many applications that > > > do not comply to the ICCCM rule. > > > - Applications that are currently not EWMH compliant SHOULD be > > > changed to become ICCCM compliant and set said property, or do > > > not set it and use the legacy way (not recommended). > > > > I guess where I would disagree here is that I see no evidence that > > legacy apps depend on a single behavior. It seems that historically > > window managers are broken in six dozen different ways, and apps also > > are. > > > > Basically I don't know what the "legacy way" *is* ;-) > > Is it "what mwm does"? "what twm does"? > > The legacy way is to ignore win_gravity for ConfigureRequest and > always use StaticGravity. This just seems like a really bad idea.. What if the app wants to be in the top left corner (0,0). You aren't going to want its decorations to be off-screen. If the app knows it wants this then it should explicitly set its gravity. However.. There was talk a while ago about adding a client message to the ewmh that would let an app send a ConfigureRequest with an included gravity. Perhaps a good comprimise would be to declare standard ConfigureRequests as always being treated as StaticGravity, and then apps can use this new 'ConfigureRequest' if they want to use a different gravity. Ben -- I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.
Attachment:
pgpR59JCkJoQf.pgp
Description: PGP signature