Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Umm, Tuomo, wtf. AFAICT in regards to _EFFECT vs. override-redirect, > you're arguing *against* having clients provide fine-grained > information to the WM (i.e., letting the WM distinguish between "I am > a legacy override-redirect window, which could have any number of > intended semantics" and "I am *this sort* of override-redirect > window"). This approach gives the WM strictly more ability to make > intelligent and flexible policy decisions. What you would prefer is > to take away that information, and then to handle the use case stated, > you want the spec to impose the one policy (!) that should be used for > o-r windows in all cases. And this is in the name of abstraction and > fostering alternatives? I don't get it.
I agree with you entirely, though some points have been made (or almost made, at least) that should not be ignored. The window manager should not be concerned with override-redirect windows at all, and these composite manager features really have no business in the wm-spec. Composite managers should have their own spec. For that matter, why are window managers being made with composite managers built in, anyway? The world would be a much better place if people could choose composite effects independently from the window manager (you wouldn't believe how often I get asked "can I use fluxbox in beryl/compiz?"). With that goal in mind, what information is the composite manager relying on that it can't get from EWMH? Making this information available should be our primary focus, IMO. Mark _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list