Re: missing semantic types

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:31:00PM +0100, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> 
> 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 would say if we have an extension we should write it down, yes.

Don't get me wrong, I would much rather that we had a HIG that was
cross-desktop and that everything to implement it was in EWMH. ;-)

Havoc