Mikhael Goikhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think this may be a good opportunity to discontinue this functionality. > Tiled pixmap borders as they are now just don't work. I would guess noone > likes the fact that the top and left borders look constantly, while the > bottom and right borders look randomly for different windows. It is pretty > impossible to find a good pixmap to use for tiling as it is now. > > I would like to hear from anyone who uses tiled pixmaps whether he agrees > with a different approach to tiling. I personaly don't think a border look > should be dependent on the window size. I think it is better to add a > functionality to define 1, 2 or 4 tiles that are used (after a possible > manipulation) for different border sides, so they are always look constant > independently from the window size. It is ok for me that there will be 4 > crossing points at corner pieces, in the future this may be configurable.
I don't disagree with your main point except to say that I think that there are some pixmaps that look fine for borders: http://www.fvwm.org/screenshots/Dan-desk-1280x1024.gif There is no up or down to that texture. > Just to illustrate, if this ascii-art pixmap is given ... > I don't warry what is drawn in the corner pieces, they may be empty. > Compare with the current ugly (IMO) look depending on the window size. > > Thus the window partitioning for both tile pixmap borders and normal > window borders should be the same, similarly to what is described below. Refering to my screenshot, I've decided the handles detract from the overall appearance and dispensed with them, so I wouldn't like empty corner pieces. -- Dan Espen E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 444 Hoes Lane Room RRC 1C-214 Phone: (732) 699-5570 Piscataway, NJ 08854 -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
