Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers whic
On 06-Aug-2002 Colin Walters wrote:
> [ no need to CC me, I read -policy ]
>
> On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 15:55, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
>> I think the real thing to say is GNOME, KDE, etc should not ask for
>> x-window-manager but netwm-window-manager.
>
> That is another, equally valid alternative¹. I don't have a strong
> opinion about which is better. If you or others think that
> netwm-window-manager is much better, then I'll accept it. However, your
> version doesn't yet have a patch...
>
Because it is a pseudo counter proposal.
Your proposal is based on the assumption that:
ICCCM < NETWM
and that obviously netwm should take precedence. But netwm support is only
really useful if the user is using other netwm apps. At the moment (and I do
not really see this changing) this means GNOME, KDE, and other desktop
environments.
So I see no reason for metacity or kwin to jump to the head of the pack unless
a netwm compliant environment is needed.
I also see most wms moving towards netwm. The only ones not heading that way
are dead/dormant (twm) or those which are run by coders who choose not to
support their users running GNOME/KDE/whatever apps.
Also note that netwm is for the most part a layer on ICCCM so it is reasonable
to ignore netwm for most apps. Things that will break are desktop icons,
pagers, and panels.
Reply to: