On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:31:00PM +0100, Matthias Clasen wrote: > > 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" ? I need to say that I dislike the idea of a gnome extensions spec. The idea of this EWMH was (as i understood it) to create a standard set of hints so any window manager could function just as well in any environment, and applications could work functionally the same in any window manager. Creating a gnome extension set seems to be no better than the old gnome 1 specific hints. Ben -- I am damn unsatisfied to be killed in this way.
Attachment:
pgpho9ENxCDCj.pgp
Description: PGP signature