On Nov 26, 2007 8:53 AM, Lubos Lunak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 of November 2007, Giles Atkinson wrote: > > It seems to me that these would be better defined as one of the multiple > > documented values of _NET_WM_STATE rather than the single value of > > _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE. Looking at the existing defintions, TYPE specifies the > > UI semantics of a window, while STATE defines various, possibly temporary, > > properties it may have. These requests for special treatments by the > > compositing manager looks far more like STATEs than TYPEs to me. > > I agree with the semantics vs properties part, but I think the problem is > just the naming. I don't see how either of these two "states" could be > temporary - they are both for special type windows and only for them.
In the case of a window doing its own fade-in or fade-out effect, it would be temporary, and the window could be treated normally the rest of the time. Thus, I agree that it's more of a state than a type. I still don't have a good name for it, though. Mark _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list