On Saturday 30 of July 2005 04:45, Elijah Newren wrote: > Hi, > > > That's why I said "in normal words". The problem is, your description of > > the functionality doesn't mean anything to me. "A request from > > workspace-aware pager" ... aha. I don't really know what to do actually > > do with that, I even don't see the difference between 2 and 3. > > > > Also, now that I think of it, "make everything come to the window" > > actually conflicts with what you want your taskbar to do. Although, > > perhaps it actually should specify the behaviour. I want KDE's taskbar to > > always act the same regardless of what you Metacity developers think. > > Then we'll have to make the spec spell out a whole lot more than just > what to do with workspaces (raising, showing desktop, viewports, > shading, transients/siblings/ancestors, etc.). ;-) > > > It's the taskbar's decision what clicking the taskbar entry will do > > I think that's what I was disagreeing with. The only way to > completely get that is to specify what _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW does in > detail when the request comes from a pager. So, whenever anyone wants > to make a slightly different policy, then we have to add a new value > with a really long description of the exact details that come with it. > Further, if anyone comes up with some new cool UI design element that > we want to use, then our spec is suddenly underspecified and if people > make conflicting choices then we have to deprecate all the old ones > and make new ones with more detailed policy requirements. I think the > list of policies we'd need to specify is just too long.
Not really. As far as I can say pretty much everybody (ok, except for you ;) ) agrees on one interpretation of what _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW should do. And even then it's just two ways, "go to the window" and "make the window come". I don't think there's anything in between. The problem is just expressing this in the spec. > However, I'm guessing that you only really want to specify part of the > behavior, and even then in a somewhat semantic kind of way (i.e. not > mentioning workspaces but just worded so that it's clear how to handle > it and gives the behavior you want). Something like "pager request to > activate the window where it is" and "pager request to activate the > window by bringing it to the user". That sounds fine to me. > > > , we just want to have to use > > only a single _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW to avoid some problems like having > > another window activated if _NET_WM_DESKTOP + _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW combo is > > used. For your taskbar-moves-the-window-to-the-current window, your > > taskbar could actually use 1, so your taskbar would have the "make the > > window come to the user". > > > > So I actually think having 0 - legacy, 1 - "make window come", 2 - "make > > everything come to window" should be enough. And perhaps one more, given > > that you see a difference between your 2 and 3 below. > > The 2 and 3 thing was more because I forgot about the source > indication field and wanted to differentiate between application and > pager requests... Anyway, this looks like it works, but I'm kind of > worried because it means apps should choose between 1 and 2--and I'm > totally going to ignore what they pick because I think apps should > only be specifying "do what's necessary to activate me", not > specifying how the activation takes place. Is there any chance we use > the source indication field to handle this extension? I.e: > > 0 - legacy window or pager > 1 - request from an application to activate the given window > 2 - legacy pager > 3 - request from pager to activate the given window by bringing it to the > user > 4 - request from pager to activate the given window by bringing the > user to it I think it'd be better to go with 0 - legacy, 1 - "go to window", 2 - "make window come". Source indication is used for more messages than just this one, it'd just make it confusing. _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW message still has some room left. Also, your 2 doesn't quite make sense to me, that's just 0 again, and if anybody bothers to specify this fields, they can as well already specify a better value. The WM in the end should probably base its decision on both this field and source indication (obey only pagers, use desktop policy for apps). > > I think that'd provide what you want (pager hints about how > window/user move relative to each other), and would also cover what I > want (can differentiate between apps and the two kinds of pager > requests). -- Lubos Lunak KDE developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SuSE CR, s.r.o. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drahobejlova 27 tel: +420 2 9654 2373 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 2 9654 2374 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list