I hope you guys aren't sick of hearing from me. :-) On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:05:39 -0600, Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:00:13 +0200, Lubos Lunak <l lunak suse cz> wrote: > > Besides what I already commented above, this looks fine to me. > > I'll try to generate a patch to the EWMH with my proposal. I agree > that the combination of ACTION_TYPE and EVENT_TYPE is a little weird, > but perhaps you or others can help me see how to free up a slot so > that they can be separate fields within the ClientMessage. Okay, I figured out my confusion with the window in Lubos' original TAKE_ACTIVITY proposal (the words "the respective client window" appear twice and Lubos talks about both not allowing the window to be changed and about requiring the window to be changed to the root window; I think the apparent conflict is resolved by understanding that the different requirements apply to different fields where those words occurred). I also think that I've figured out how to get rid of the nasty status=3*action_type+event_type stuff (for some reason, I was stuck on having xclient.data.l[0] = _NET_WM_MOUSE_ACTION when I believe that isn't necessary since xclient.message_type already has that info). So, I have attached two patches to the wm-spec.xml file. The first is closer to my current proof-of-concept implementation. The second is the same other than that it gets rid of the status=3*action_type+event_type stuff that Lubos didn't like. I have incorporated Lubos' suggestion that toolkits and apps should be allowed to use MOUSE_ACTION_MISC for all events and considers this "basic" support--this will allow a simple patch such as what Lubos already has for QT/KDE (and like what I created in my first attempt for GTK+ before Owen told me he wanted the actions to be taken at the GTK level instead of the GDK level).
Attachment:
wm-spec-mouse-action-1.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
wm-spec-mouse-action-2.patch
Description: Binary data