Re: Still need a hint for undecorated windows

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Mon, 2005-06-27 at 11:31 +0200, Bradley T Hughes wrote:
> 
> There is no way we could cover every possible semantic type.

Not really the point; my point would be more that "whenever we can add a
semantic type to cover a case, it improves the situation vs. using the
MWM hints for that case"

i.e. I would like to see us understand on this list all the use cases we
can, and for the ones that are moderately mainstream and possible to
clearly define, put in semantic hints for them.

Basically, would rather hear from app authors than have them just
hacking stuff together.

There's going to be the MWM hint escape hatch, so non-mainstream uses or
cases we can't figure out how to define can use those as they always
have.

It's still valuable to bring our common cases into a better-understood
and formally specified framework.

> better. Please people, is it so hard to give people what they are asking 
> for? How about some cooperation instead of arrogance?

What are you asking for? I think everyone had a consensus that we'd keep
supporting the MWM hints, which let app authors do what they want.

I started on the app/toolkit side remember, not the WM side. My goal is
basically to make the two work together better.

> > 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).

Maybe what you're arguing is that apps should be able to ignore the spec
if appropriate, and I agree with that. Though, I'd still like to hear
about the case on this list so we can decide if it's of enough general
interest to modify the spec to support it.

Havoc