Re: Still need a hint for undecorated windows

[Bradley T Hughes <bhughes trolltech com>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:
> My take would be that they _are_ intended to be complete replacements
> - i.e. ideally we would like to have semantic hints that cover all
> the reasonable cases people want to use the mwm hint, and so if a
> case is not covered, either it's a spec bug, or an out-there app we
> don't care about for the sort of relatively-mainstream scope of the
> spec.

There is no way we could cover every possible semantic type. Even if we
could, the question will always be "which one do I use if I don't want
decorations on my window?". It's possible with the the _MOTIF_WM_HINTS
to turn them off; it's not using only EWMH hints. Obviously an omission :)

<rant>
FWIW, we (the wm-spec-list) had this fight when writing the original
spec, and unforunately the idealists won. This is the reason that my
original implementation included the _KDE_NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_OVERRIDE
that Lubos mentioned. And as Lubos mentioned, it's only used to indicate
a normal window without decorations. And again, the vocal minority is
winning. It's rather frustrating to get replies that basically (very
rudely) say: app authors are stupid and window manager authors know 
better. Please people, is it so hard to give people what they are asking 
for? How about some cooperation instead of arrogance?
</rant>

> > I've had a few cases now of people wanting to be netwm-compliant in
> > their toolkits asking what the "correct" way to get an undecorated
> > window is.
>
> I think the answer is 1) either fix your app or report a wm-spec bug,
>  and 2) use MWM hint while you're waiting.

There is no way to fix the app. It's simply not possible to do, since
the spec explicitly omits the possibility. The only option is 2 (and
given the general attitude on this list, we'll have to live with it,
since it's not going to change).

--
Bradley T. Hughes - bhughes at trolltech.com
Trolltech AS - Waldemar Thranes gt. 98 N-0175 Oslo, Norway