Re: [EWMH] _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_AUXILIARY
- From: Tuomo Valkonen <tuomov iki fi>
- To: wm-spec-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: [EWMH] _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE_AUXILIARY
- Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 07:24:11 +0000 (UTC)
On 2007-10-13, Nathaniel Smith <njs pobox com> 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
Forced fine-grained information adds complexity, and isn't needed in
this case. But the EWMH folks -- well, all of FDO really -- have never
cared about such things. EWMH and FDO shit (XEmbed is another example)
is all about highly WIMPshit-specific fine-grained information from
WIMPshit apps to WIMPshit WMs, with little regard for abstraction
and simplicity.
The model I propose, where override-redirect windows are not messed
with by the compositing manager unless additional information is
available, is precisely one where the information at the highest
level is abstract, but more fine-grained hints may be provided.
But what the folks here want is that apps must always provide
the high-specific EWMH information for the CM to not arbitrarily
mess with their override-redirect windows.
(Override-redirect should be the exact opposite of managed windows:
managers don't mess with them, whereas they're free to do what they
want with managed windows -- an extremely wise decision in the ICCCM,
one that probably wouldn't be made to day -- no, they Windows-inspired
kids would just let apps manage their own windows. Many programs do
indeed fight against this user-friendly (sic) policy these days,
thinking they should manage their windows, and yet don't make them
override-redirects. Of course, override-redirect should not be used
to simply write your application-specific WM.)
--
Tuomo
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]