On 2007-10-16, Lubos Lunak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I did, but maybe I didn't get it. Are you talking maybe about "crappy > toolkits or such forcing a window type being specified"? AFAIK it's a rather > common practice to detect client support for the spec by a presence of any > _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE hint.
We're talking about __override-redirect__ windows here. It's rather common for them to have no hints. Why should programs specifically support EWMH to not have their override-redirect windows arbitrarily messed with? Why should they support it at all? It's largely highly WIMPshit-specific crap designed by people with a tunnel vision and little regard for abstraction and alternatives. The ICCCM, by contrast, mostly provides basic "how can we get along without imposing too much policy" guidelines. If the EWMH or other FDO crap goes against the spirit of the ICCCM, instead of simply providing additional _hints_, why should one choose it over the former or an interpretation thereof? Because the desktop herd that is the source of present sordid state of *nix/FOS wants that? I also mentioned that AUXILIARY is a better more abstract hint to override crap that wants to set the TYPE hint on override-redirects, than the highly-specific EFFECT. Why should the CM or WM care what is contained in an override-redirect that it doesn't know how to handle in a special manner, unlike e.g. menus? Can you think of any actually useful case where it should know that it's dealing with an EFFECT specifically? And isn't that likely to be a very marginal class? Wasn't even the original post about some very ugly overlay hack or something? (Can't be arsed to find it now.) Let's keep the complexity down if it achieves little. But do whatever you will. I've lost all hope in FOSS and am likely to switch to Windows once it comes time to upgrade. -- Tuomo _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list