On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 13:20 +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote: > On Wednesday 03 of October 2007, Havoc Pennington wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 10/3/07, Denis Washington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, override-redirect windows are also faded in and out > > > > Right, what I'm asking is whether we have any precedent for *hints* on > > these windows. > > Yes, right in the spec, since some time :). There's e.g. a short > section "Override-redirect windows" mentioning them. > > > It's kind of a weird thing, because override redirect has always been > > the "don't mess with my window at all" escape hatch. Metacity for > > example won't even create an inside-WM representation for these > > windows. > > > > For compositing managers, I guess if it didn't mess with your window > > at all then the window wouldn't be drawn on the screen. But I'm > > wondering to what extent the escape hatch still exists. Do we have in > > the EMWH these days something like "override redirect causes the WM to > > ignore a window for purposes of resizing, stacking, and window > > navigation; however, override redirect has no effect on compositing > > the window"? > > No, there's nothing like that in the spec, but it's kind of logical that a > WM > wouldn't resize or Alt+Tab to an override-redirect window. However, in fact, > probably having something like that stated explicitly would be against the > usual spirit of X of not forbidding anything just in case one day somebody > comes up with a way of doing it that makes sense ;). > > > Anyway - regarding the hint proposal, one suggestion is to come up > > with a more descriptive name than AUXILIARY, such as VISUAL_EFFECT. > > Then in defining what the WM should do with this window, spell out > > that the CM should render the window "as is" - which is almost saying > > "do the equivalent of override redirect for compositing, since > > override redirect itself does not apply to compositing" - that is, > > composite this window literally without overriding anything. I don't > > know. Anyway, it needs to be precisely specified what you want the CM > > to do and not do. > > I agree here. AUXILIARY sounds like A_SPECIAL_HACK. I think that ideally all > such effects should be in the CM, but in reality I would be fine with having > this VISUAL_EFFECT.
Yes, VISUAL_EFFECT is definitely a better name. Cheers, Denis _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list