On 13-Aug-2002 Colin Walters wrote:
> Well, are we basically in rough consensus about this now?
>
> Here's an updated patch which just makes the priority increase 20
> instead of 30.
>
sure.
>
>> (I still want to hear what Branden has to say about all of this, too.)
>
> I haven't firmly made up my mind yet.
>
> Can someone tell me what the relationship between WMSP, "netwm", and
> the EWMH spec is?
>
netwm is the name for the spec referred to in the original mail of this policy
pr
On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 21:12, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> 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
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 altern
[ 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
>
> I'd like to hear some feedback from X experts on this, esp. Branden.
> I also think it would be good if Gnome had some sort of tropism for
> metacity/sawfish outside of the x-window-manager alternative, but
> that's somewhat orthogonal to this proposal.
>
> However, I have a gut feeling that
6 matches
Mail list logo
