interface.
Thanks,
Giles
-Original Message-
From: xdg-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org
[mailto:xdg-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Aaron J. Seigo
Sent: 19 January 2010 18:44
To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: Proposing the StatusNotifier specification
On January 19, 2010
On January 25, 2010, Giles Atkinson wrote:
Aaaron,
Another deferred follow-up, but on 19th January, you wrote:
would it help if the entry for ApplicationStatus was extended from ...
to something like: ...
I think that would answer the category objection entirely.
great; we'll include
On Monday 25 January 2010, Giles Atkinson wrote:
Aaaron,
Another deferred follow-up, but on 19th January, you wrote:
would it help if the entry for ApplicationStatus was extended from ...
to something like: ...
I think that would answer the category objection entirely.
is there
On January 25, 2010, Marco Martin wrote:
I've done this suggested change together with other proposed changes in
other messages and committed to gitorious.
for those curious about where in gitorious:
git clone git://gitorious.org/~notmart/xdg-specs/notmart-xdg-specs.git
cd notmart-xdg-specs
Dan Winship wrote:
On 01/20/2010 08:25 AM, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
Having applications control visualization means you can have N different
behaviors, leading to inconsistency. This is what happens with the
current x-embed protocol.
It happens with StatusNotifier too; if you have a mix of
Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:44 -0800, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
the semantics of the operations as realized in a given visualization are not
overly specified to purposefully allow for flexibility in the visualization.
yes, there is an assumption here that those writing
On 01/20/2010 08:25 AM, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
Having applications control visualization means you can have N different
behaviors, leading to inconsistency. This is what happens with the
current x-embed protocol.
It happens with StatusNotifier too; if you have a mix of KDE-based and
On January 19, 2010, Giles Atkinson wrote:
Do you have concrete examples? every app we looked at that puts an icon
in the tray (and there are dozens) fits into one of the existing
categories; in fact, that's how we came up with them.
Yes, I do and it is not an isolated case, but an
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:44 -0800, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
the semantics of the operations as realized in a given visualization are not
overly specified to purposefully allow for flexibility in the visualization.
yes, there is an assumption here that those writing those visualizations
2009/12/17 Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gat...@canonical.com:
Hi,
A few months ago, Marco Martin proposed a new specification to
freedesktop.org [1] (at this time it was named NotificationItem, it has
since then be renamed to StatusNotifier to avoid confusion with the
existing Notification
On Thursday 14 January 2010, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
2009/12/17 Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gat...@canonical.com:
Hi,
A few months ago, Marco Martin proposed a new specification to
freedesktop.org [1] (at this time it was named NotificationItem, it has
since then be renamed to
2010/1/14 Marco Martin notm...@gmail.com:
On Thursday 14 January 2010, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
2009/12/17 Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gat...@canonical.com:
Hi,
A few months ago, Marco Martin proposed a new specification to
freedesktop.org [1] (at this time it was named
Le jeudi 14 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Marco Martin a écrit :
I am wondering if we need some event timestamps for the methods on
org.freedesktop.StatusNotifierItem? Window managers that does focus
stealing prevention will not allow apps to focus windows at whatever
times suits them
2009/12/17 Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gat...@canonical.com:
Hi,
A few months ago, Marco Martin proposed a new specification to
freedesktop.org [1] (at this time it was named NotificationItem, it has
since then be renamed to StatusNotifier to avoid confusion with the
existing Notification
On Thursday 14 January 2010, Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
2009/12/17 Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gat...@canonical.com:
Hi,
A few months ago, Marco Martin proposed a new specification to
freedesktop.org [1] (at this time it was named NotificationItem, it has
since then be renamed to
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:13 -0800, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On January 12, 2010, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
I remember one of the outcomes of the freedesktop.org discussion we had
at Gran Canaria Desktop Summit was that a spec didn't have to be fully
finalized to be allowed to use the
On January 13, 2010, you wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-12 at 10:13 -0800, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
On January 12, 2010, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
I remember one of the outcomes of the freedesktop.org discussion we had
at Gran Canaria Desktop Summit was that a spec didn't have to be fully
finalized
Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
Having the specification accepted now would make it possible for both
implementations to switch to the org.freedesktop DBus namespace now,
thus simplifying code because there would be no need to register two names.
(Trying to avoid letting this thread die)
I remember
On January 12, 2010, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
I remember one of the outcomes of the freedesktop.org discussion we had
at Gran Canaria Desktop Summit was that a spec didn't have to be fully
finalized to be allowed to use the org.freedesktop DBus namespace.
personally, i think it needs to have at
Hi,
Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009, à 18:07 +0100, Aurélien Gâteau a écrit :
This specification is already implemented by KDE in kdelibs [2] and
Canonical is working on an implementation for GNOME, libappindicator [3].
Reading [4], I had the feeling that this would now be implemented
directly in
On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi,
Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009, à 18:07 +0100, Aurélien Gâteau a écrit :
This specification is already implemented by KDE in kdelibs [2] and
Canonical is working on an implementation for GNOME, libappindicator [3].
Reading [4], I had the
Le mercredi 06 janvier 2010, à 16:03 +0100, Marco Martin a écrit :
On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Vincent Untz wrote:
I find org.freedesktop.StatusNotifierItem a bit, hrm, weird, though. Why
not org.freedesktop.StatusItem or org.freedesktop.NotificationItem.
well, it acttally changed name
On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 15:18 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le jeudi 17 décembre 2009, à 18:07 +0100, Aurélien Gâteau a écrit :
This specification is already implemented by KDE in kdelibs [2] and
Canonical is working on an implementation for GNOME, libappindicator [3].
Reading [4], I had the
...@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of Aurélien Gâteau
Sent: 06 January 2010 10:29
To: xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: Proposing the StatusNotifier specification
Hi,
It has been over two weeks now and nobody commented on the spec. Can I
deduce from this that everyone is fine with us switching
On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Giles Atkinson wrote:
Aurélien,
Your message below prompted me to read the specification, something that
has been on my to do list since the original post. I do have a few
comments.
1) This represents a huge increase in complexity and in dependencies for
the StatusNotifier specification
On Wednesday 06 January 2010, Giles Atkinson wrote:
Aurélien,
Your message below prompted me to read the specification, something that
has been on my to do list since the original post. I do have a few
comments.
1) This represents a huge increase
On January 6, 2010, Vincent Untz wrote:
StatusItem would be probably ok-ish
too, but not significantly better than StatusNotifierItem
a Status notifier item is a thing that notifies about the status of an
application, so even if not totally pretty is a name that seems to make
perfect
On January 6, 2010, Giles Atkinson wrote:
Thank you for your comments on those of mine. I agree that most of your
remarks on item 1 make sense, but can not agree with ... Xembed seems
pretty slow ..., as in this case it comes down to little more than
reparenting a window.
it's not the
28 matches
Mail list logo
