Re: Modality changes proposal

[Dominik Vogt <dominik vogt gmx de>]

On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 07:33:38PM +0400, Denis O. Mikhalkin wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 16:37, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> >  As the post by Gregory Merchan shows, possibly no extending of TRANSIENT_FOR 
> > is necessary.
> It might be technically not necessary, but strictly speaking NOTHING is
> technically necessary - some people are happy writing their programs
> using assembler so they don't understand why all this might be needed.
> However, how about cross-WM compatibility?

Could we please stick to the facts instead of flaming?

> If some ICCCM compliant WM
> comes after non-ICCCM compliant, won't it be confused by the use of
> TRANSIENT_FOR?

Then the chance that this WM honours any hints we define is close
to zero.  The best you can get is that all WMs that implement the
wmspec work the same.

> That is, it might not, but will be the result the same as
> the developer and the user expected to see from the application windows
> having this TRANSIENT_FOR?

> >  We already have way to specify parent-modal and group-modal dialogs, with 
> > parent and group transiency. I'd say it even works with KDE3.2 KWin. Not that 
> > I know any real application using such complicated relations with which I 
> > could test it.
> Java could be the one, but until I am 100% sure that all _NET WMs
> implement modality similarly and that every situation when parent
> modalities are mixed with group modalities they work equally I don't
> think we'll risk using them both - we need to make sure it works on all
> platforms, on all WMs equally.

Except when the user demands a different behaviour.  Note too that
almost all features of the wmspec are *optional*, so there is no
guarantee that they are implemented.

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^