On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:25:15 PM CET you wrote: > Is there a use case where the WM_CLASS would be different from the > desktop file name in practice? > > I'm not aware of any applications which weren't able to adapt to the > new WM_CLASS matching rules once told about them -- we should just > document it.
Erm, sorry. You cannot change the meaning and expect legacy applications will adopt to it. That just doesn't work. And yes I tried and the first application I checked has a mismatch between desktop file name and WM_CLASS. I picked xterm. Oh and there are also windows belonging to applications which don't have a desktop file at all. I can think of hundreds of test applications which just don't install on the system in any meaningful way. What's their WM_CLASS supposed to be? Sorry, I think that's just wish-full thinking to be able to update ICCCM section 4.1.2.5 and everybody adopting to it. Cheers Martin > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Martin Graesslin <mgraess...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Wednesday, November 11, 2015 11:21:44 AM CET Allison Ryan Lortie wrote: > >> I understand that this doesn't correspond exactly to your original > >> intention with this addition, > > > > no it's worse: it makes the part which I wanted to fix impossible. Which > > would mean that: > > a) I scratch what I wanted to fix > > b) willfully break the spec > > c) add a KDE specific additional property to get what I wanted in the > > first > > place > > > >> but I think your original intent is > >> unrealisable: you will either have many apps that provide nothing at > >> all, > > > > which is fine! This is an optional flag. It's not a requirement. The > > proposal (after Thomas update) will say that the window MUST NOT specify > > the desktop file if it doesn't know it. If it cannot be matched to a > > desktop file: that's fine. > > > >> or you will have some apps that provide something other than the > >> desktop file name. > > > > This would be a clear violation of the spec. Adding a requirement to add > > DBus to it, will not fix windows ignoring the spec and passing in wrong > > data.> > >> This is the same problem as the previous attempt to solve this problem: > >> there was a proposal at some point that the wmclass should be equal to > >> the name of the desktop file. For many apps this was true, but coverage > >> was never 100%. > > > > Right, because you cannot change the meaning of an existing property and > > then assume that it will work. Because of that I propose a new additional > > protocol applications can opt-in to when they can provide the > > information. > > > > Cheers > > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > > wm-spec-list mailing list > > wm-spec-list@gnome.org > > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list wm-spec-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
