Re: [RFC] _NET_WORKAREA and Xinerama

[Rob Adams <robadams ucla edu>]

So then there's no reason to have full-width struts at all, except for
backwards compatibility.  What does KWin do with struts right now? 
Perhaps we should switch generally to a partial-width strut for all
uses, then define a useful semantic for dealing with legacy struts in a
reasonably intelligent way.

On Thu, 2003-03-13 at 20:11, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 06:27:51PM -0800, Rob Adams wrote:
> > We will probably want to make explicit in the spec that struts apply
> > only to the xineramas that the window setting the strut actually
> > overlaps.  So edge panels on one xinerama would set a full-width strut,
> > and the window manager would take this to mean a strut across that
> > particular xinerama.
> > 
> > So partial-width struts would only be used for corner panels.
> > 
> > Does this sound sensible to people?
> > 
> 
> To me, the reason we used struts instead of "do not cover" was to keep
> the extents of the window from affecting the strut, e.g. for panels
> that hide or whatever. So I think it's kind of strange to make struts
> per-xinerama.
> 
> If partial-width struts are the solution, I think panels should have
> to be xinerama-aware and set them explicitly partial-width matching
> the xinerama heads.
> 
> Havoc
>