Re: missing semantic types

["Matthias Clasen" <Matthias Clasen poet de>]

> If GNOME is going to have those kind of windows then it probably needs
> a semantic type. (Urgency hint isn't right, these aren't necessarily
> urgent.)
> 
> However if no one except GNOME is going to have those kind of windows, 
> we may as well set the window type to a list;
> 
> _GNOME_WINDOW_TYPE_ALERT, _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_DIALOG
>
> That's why we added the list feature after all. And we'd probably set
> a list even if it was _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_ALERT for back compat
> purposes.
> 
> So it's sort of a question of whether other environments want to
> distinguish these windows, that determines what namespace to put the
> type in.

Sounds fine as far as the EWMH is concerned, but opens the question 
what specs beyond ICCCM and EWMH a WM should implement in order to become
fully Gnome compliant. Will there be a Gnome-EWMH-extensions spec, or
will Gnome fall back to the level of "Metacity is the spec" ?

Matthias