Nathaniel Smith wrote: > 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 that things like this should be standardized as _NET_CM_WINDOW_*. > > (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.)
If we decide to use the _NET_CM namespace for composite managers, then I think that it could be also renamed to _NET_CM_Sn, but this also depends on how many applications already use _NET_WM_CM_Sn to detect that a composite manager is running. Dennis _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
