Re: [EWMH] _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_AUXILIARY

["Mark Tiefenbruck" <mark fluxbox org>]

Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Umm, Tuomo, wtf.  AFAICT in regards to _EFFECT vs. override-redirect,
> you're arguing *against* having clients provide fine-grained
> information to the WM (i.e., letting the WM distinguish between "I am
> a legacy override-redirect window, which could have any number of
> intended semantics" and "I am *this sort* of override-redirect
> window").  This approach gives the WM strictly more ability to make
> intelligent and flexible policy decisions.  What you would prefer is
> to take away that information, and then to handle the use case stated,
> you want the spec to impose the one policy (!) that should be used for
> o-r windows in all cases.  And this is in the name of abstraction and
> fostering alternatives?  I don't get it.

I agree with you entirely, though some points have been made (or
almost made, at least) that should not be ignored. The window manager
should not be concerned with override-redirect windows at all, and
these composite manager features really have no business in the
wm-spec. Composite managers should have their own spec.

For that matter, why are window managers being made with composite
managers built in, anyway? The world would be a much better place if
people could choose composite effects independently from the window
manager (you wouldn't believe how often I get asked "can I use fluxbox
in beryl/compiz?"). With that goal in mind, what information is the
composite manager relying on that it can't get from EWMH? Making this
information available should be our primary focus, IMO.

  Mark