Hi, On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Christian Hammond<chip...@chipx86.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Brian J. Tarricone <bj...@cornell.edu> > wrote: >> >> On 06/13/2009 02:18 PM, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: >> > Brian J. Tarricone wrote: >> >> 1. Passive vs. active notifications. I recall that notify-osd >> >> unilaterally decided that the 'actions' bit of the spec was Bad[tm] and >> >> that notifications should be entirely passive and not accept input. >> > >> > I would rather not start a discussion on this subject: it has been >> > debated to death and people won't change their mind. >> >> That's rather closed-minded. But I suppose if Canonical wants to go >> their own way and ignore community consensus, it's free to do so. > > They know my stance on this one. Upstream libnotify and notification-daemon > will always support actions. These are too useful and too many people want > them. So at that point, it's really up to the developers to choose what they > want, and whether they want to accept patches to get rid of actions or not. > And it's up to Canonical to decide if they want to maintain a patchset for > all apps to strip actions, or reverse their policy on that. > > I'll fight any change to remove action support from the spec to the death :)
Do you have a specific response to the problems that they describe at the following? https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotificationDevelopmentGuidelines#Avoiding%20actions I'd be very interested to see it. I think that rationale is fairly compelling actually. Thanks, Jon _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
