Good feedback. On 2018-04-09 11:09 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > Does this name correspond to the physical connector or to the specific > monitor connected? Or some abstract "output" concept, see the next > paragraph about clone mode.
Doesn't matter, whatever the compositor wants. Should be unique to each wl_output. > [...] Would xdg_outputs for the cloned wl_outputs report identical > names to signify they in fact always show the exact same image? No. > Is this name intended to be stable and persistent, so that applications > can expect to save it in a config and find the same one later, after a > machine reboot, at least if the configuration of that output has not > changed and the compositor is still the same version? Yes. > The name is arbitrary, right? No standardization is inteneded? I.e. > switching compositors will likely result in different names. Aye. Some compositors might find it useful to follow an informal standard, though, like all wlroots-based compositors use consistent names (e.g. DP-1). > Is the name enough, would you perhaps want to have a human-readable > description string as well? Perhaps something for a user to totally > customize and more verbose than just a name? Eh, I'm not a fan of this idea. > I think it would be good to explicitly answer most of these questions > in the spec, even if "configured by name" does imply some answers. Yep, will send a v3 answering some of these. _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
