On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 09:00:29PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > Hello, > > I'd like to standardize few more things about compositing managers. Looking > at the spec, there are already few things in an added section, but it almost > looks like quickly hacked in and expecting that a WM and a CM have to be the > same (e.g. there should not be any _WM_ in the selection name). So I thought > the first thing to do should be to ask a couple of questions: > > - Are people fine with having it in one spec or should it be a separate one > building on top of EWMH? Some things are shared (e.g. _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE), > but some are clearly separate. > > - Are people fine with using this list or should a separate one be created?
Well, it makes sense to me: http://www.mail-archive.com/wm-spec-list@gnome.org/msg00557.html The consensus of implementations seems to be moving towards WMs and CMs being the same thing anyway, and there's already at least one de facto, undocumented standard for CM behavior that "illegally" uses the EWMH-reserved _NET_WM namespace (_NET_WM_WINDOW_OPACITY). Better to bless such things and bring them into the spec than let them proliferate. (I think, though, that the _NET_WM_CM_Sn selection has "WM" in it because "_NET_WM" is the EWMH namespace, not because it's the "window manager" namespace, if that distinction makes sense. So it doesn't bother me.) -- Nathaniel -- Electrons find their paths in subtle ways. _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
