Re: Proposal: _NET_WM_STATE_MINIMIZED

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 13:31, Elijah P Newren wrote:
> 
> Ah, so if I understand correctly, the fact that libwnck's right-click
> menu for the tasklist showing items as sensitive that shouldn't be (i.e.
> move or shade on a minimized window), is actually a Metacity bug for not
> updating _NET_WM_ALLOWED_ACTIONS.  Correct?

Precisely. (I added a bugzilla comment to this effect earlier today,
before reading your mail.)

> Well, as I said above, it looks like we can chuck my proposal.  However,
> it'd still be really nice to have some clarification.  I read through
> the thread and couldn't see any conclusion reached.  What I did find was
> that it appears Sasha equates IconicState with minimized and that he
> defines shaded as a subset of NormalState
> (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2001-December/msg00007.html), yet the Metacity implementation definitely doesn't do that (it does IconicState == minimized || shaded).  And you pointed out in that thread that the ICCCM didn't equate the IconicState and minimized and that the ICCCM defined IconicState to be ambiguous.  (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2001-December/msg00020.html)

I think the conclusion is in the spec, though it might be worth adding
an explicit "why not STATE_MINIMIZED?" kind of note.

Other than the definition of HIDDEN, there's this paragraph on
implementing workspaces:
http://freedesktop.org/Standards/wm-spec/index.html#id2766647

        The second option is to keep all managed windows as children of
        the root window and unmap the frames of those which are not on
        the current desktop. Unmapped windows should be placed in
        IconicState, according to the ICCCM. Windows which are actually
        iconified or minimized should have the _NET_WM_STATE_HIDDEN
        property set, to communicate to pagers that the window should
        not be represented as "onscreen."
        
So that basically implies that we decided IconicState != minimized, i.e.
we kept the strict ICCCM interpretation.

We could probably add something to the "Implementation notes" at the end
where we have the other ICCCM clarifications e.g. on window gravity. Not
sure what the exact wording would be.

Havoc