On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:25:15 PM CET you wrote:
Is there a use case where the WM_CLASS would be different from the desktop file name in practice? I'm not aware of any applications which weren't able to adapt to the new WM_CLASS matching rules once told about them -- we should just document it.
Erm, sorry. You cannot change the meaning and expect legacy applications will adopt to it. That just doesn't work. And yes I tried and the first application I checked has a mismatch between desktop file name and WM_CLASS. I picked xterm. Oh and there are also windows belonging to applications which don't have a desktop file at all. I can think of hundreds of test applications which just don't install on the system in any meaningful way. What's their WM_CLASS supposed to be? Sorry, I think that's just wish-full thinking to be able to update ICCCM section 4.1.2.5 and everybody adopting to it. Cheers Martin
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraesslin kde org>
wrote:
On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:21:44 AM CET Allison Ryan Lortie wrote:I understand that this doesn't correspond exactly to your original intention with this addition,no it's worse: it makes the part which I wanted to fix impossible. Which would mean that: a) I scratch what I wanted to fix b) willfully break the spec c) add a KDE specific additional property to get what I wanted in the first placebut I think your original intent is unrealisable: you will either have many apps that provide nothing at all,which is fine! This is an optional flag. It's not a requirement. The proposal (after Thomas update) will say that the window MUST NOT specify the desktop file if it doesn't know it. If it cannot be matched to a desktop file: that's fine.or you will have some apps that provide something other than the desktop file name.This would be a clear violation of the spec. Adding a requirement to add DBus to it, will not fix windows ignoring the spec and passing in wrong data.>This is the same problem as the previous attempt to solve this problem: there was a proposal at some point that the wmclass should be equal to the name of the desktop file. For many apps this was true, but coverage was never 100%.Right, because you cannot change the meaning of an existing property and then assume that it will work. Because of that I propose a new additional protocol applications can opt-in to when they can provide the information. Cheers Martin _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list gnome org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.