Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> writes: > Can you explain why "consistency" is so important for the window > frame, but is not a problem for the buttons and scrollbars and text > fields and everything else inside the frame?
In the case of a game there probably wouldn't be any buttons or scrollbars so the only thing that could look inconsistent is the window decoration. I think it would be particularly annoying if for example the close button was in a different place in different windows. It'd be more annoying than if just the buttons looked different inside the window. > And, yes, "toolkit-agnositic decorations library" is the solution. Hey, > it could do the scrollbars and buttons, too! What a concept! Well a decorations library with scrollbars and buttons is pretty much its own toolkit :) I think it would ideally have as limited scope and dependencies as possible in order to encourage adoption. > You are advocating requiring *both* clients and compositors to be able > to draw decorations. Why make it so complicated? No, I didn't say that at all. I am saying that in xdg-shell we need to specify that either CSD is required or SSD is required. Ie, we have to pick just one and require that. Everything else is optional and should be negotiated. I am also saying we shouldn't dismiss choosing SSD so lightly because it does have advantages for making simple clients. However I concede that it's probably not the end of the world if a few games have inconsistent decorations so I'm not going to make a fuss if CSD is chosen. Regards, - Neil
pgpKgtmw3E0Yr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel