On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 01:26:38PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > > So, everything is fine. No? You use a stay on top pager (i.e., you use > stacking), so you should use this style. I've no time to explain why, > but I do like stay on top windows at all. Maybe, this > EWMHUseStackingOrderHints should be on by default. I do not know (and > I do not care). > > > After investigating the problem, my analysis of the problem is that > > it seems (according to the excellent fvwm manual page) that the > > EWMHUseStackingOrderHints was intended to disable/enable some > > KDE-specific extentions. > > > > For me the bug is in the man page.
Very well -- so long as a proper description of the option is in the man page, I think this bug can be closed. > FVWM try to follow the spec but surely do not follow this > *recommendation* without an user intervention (or if > EWMHUseStackingOrderHints was a default, without the possibility to > break such a recommendation). For me, the only acceptable stacking > rule is the one concerning _NET_WM_TYPE_DESKTOP. That's a policy decision for the fvwm team I guess, but I still think it makes sense to give full screen applications -- er -- the full screen. :-) But I can see the case where some body would like to float xclock over their session of Quake 3 or whatever to make sure he doesn't stay up too late gaming. :-) > > If the EWMHUseStackingOrderHints style is off, fullscren works, but > > pager is not hidden. But, EWMH always-on-top modes such as the one > > found in tvtime still works. > > > > Maybe tvtime use the old GNOME hints? What happen if you use > Style * IgnoreGnomeHints ? No. According to Billy Biggs (main developer of tvtime), he says that he's pretty sure that he uses EWMH hints only for this case. I haven't looked closely at the source code himself, though, but I could unless you know another way to check what tvtime uses. The IgnoreGnomeHints style does nothing to change the described behavior. > The documentation is wrong. The EWMHUseStackingOrderHints code and doc > was written before _NET_WM_STATE_BELOW, _NET_WM_STATE_ABOVE and > _NET_WM_STATE_FULLSCREEN was introduced in the ewmh spec. Even, I > think that at some point in the spec elaboration it was decided that > no stacking rules should appear in the spec (Dominik?), but one day > someone decided that all wm should work like kwin and metacity ... > > The code follows the EWMHUseStackingOrderHints style but not the > doc :o/ This happen even with FVWM! I think the EWMH stacking rules are mostly common sense, and should be the default, although they should be overridable by user setting -- i.e. the inverse of EWMHUseStackingOrderHints or whatever, but again that's a policy decision for the fvwm team. > Thanks for the clear feedback. Thanks for an elaborate answer. :-) > > Regards, Olivier > -- Per von Zweigbergk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- 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]
