On 2007-10-13, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Forced fine-grained information adds complexity, and isn't needed in this case. But the EWMH folks -- well, all of FDO really -- have never cared about such things. EWMH and FDO shit (XEmbed is another example) is all about highly WIMPshit-specific fine-grained information from WIMPshit apps to WIMPshit WMs, with little regard for abstraction and simplicity. The model I propose, where override-redirect windows are not messed with by the compositing manager unless additional information is available, is precisely one where the information at the highest level is abstract, but more fine-grained hints may be provided. But what the folks here want is that apps must always provide the high-specific EWMH information for the CM to not arbitrarily mess with their override-redirect windows. (Override-redirect should be the exact opposite of managed windows: managers don't mess with them, whereas they're free to do what they want with managed windows -- an extremely wise decision in the ICCCM, one that probably wouldn't be made to day -- no, they Windows-inspired kids would just let apps manage their own windows. Many programs do indeed fight against this user-friendly (sic) policy these days, thinking they should manage their windows, and yet don't make them override-redirects. Of course, override-redirect should not be used to simply write your application-specific WM.) -- Tuomo _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
