On Wednesday 05 of March 2008, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:55:25PM -0800, Grant Patterson wrote:
> > Dana Jansens wrote:
> > >There are no other data.l[] elements, only 5. That said, the data.s[]
> > > elements should be more than enough and allow for more things to be
> > > added in the future, but I realize every other hint exclusively uses
> > > data.l[]. Anyone else have an opinion about this?
> >
> > I like the idea of using the 16-bit elements so there's room for
> > expansion. While I can't see any reason for this now, there might be some
> > flags an app would want to set to further define window manager behavior.
> > Changed.
>
> Oh, please don't, there are enough bizarre and surprising
> inconsistencies in the X world as it is. (And this would require a
> whole new special case in at least my code.)
Huh?
> If you want future expandability, without using a new atom, then do it
> properly -- mark some fields as "if this field is non-zero, then
> discard the event" and some as "if this field is non-zero, then
> pretend the field is zero anyway", all that complex cruft.
Sorry, but this surely is a joke? Especially after calling a relatively nice
and clean solution bizarre?
> Alternatively, just accept that the way we do future expansion is by
> adding a new, extended atom, a la _NET_WM_STRUT{,_PARTIAL}...
Yeah, really annoying that with all the ways for easy extensibility of the
spec some people had the strange urge to check for exact properties size :(.
--
Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 028 972
190 00 Prague 9 fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic http//www.suse.cz
_______________________________________________
wm-spec-list mailing list
wm-spec-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
