Re: RFC: frame size hints

[Dominik Vogt <dominik vogt gmx de>]

On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 01:04:34PM -0500, Thomas Fitzsimmons wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 07:03, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 of December 2003 01:10, Rob Adams wrote:
> > > Definitely should be "calculate".  Window managers implementing
> > > approximations should document this is their respective COMPLIANCE
> > > documents.
> > 
> >  I object. I hope the previous messages in the thread have shown that it can 
> > be a major pain to always get it right, if it's actually possible at all. 
> > KWin simply cannot calculate it, it can only estimate. Even Havoc said in one 
> > message that the Metacity patch (which is the reference implementation for 
> > this) is not guaranteed to get it right. And I said already, I'd actually 
> > prefer if the wording stressed more the fact that it can be just a guess.
> 
> OK, I've rewritten the _NET_REQUEST_FRAME_EXTENTS section to emphasize
> that its result is only an estimate and to incorporate Dominik's
> suggestions.
> 
> Comments?

Okay, I think I could live with that, but ...

> +is a workable solution.  The extents estimation may depend on the
                                ^^^^^^^
should be <extents'> ______________|
                 ^^^

And then, why all these "should this" and "should that"?  Either
the client or window manager does not implement this protocol.  In
this case, the client should not have asked the WM in the first
place (after checking some feature flag).  Or both support it, and
both *must* honour the protocol exactly.

Finally, perhaps a note that the application *must* be able to
cope with wrong estimates would be a good thing (e.g. in case the
estimation changes before the client gets around mapping the
window).

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^