On Sat 27 Jun 2015 at 17:03:04 -0500, Matthew D. Fuller wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 04:53:06PM +0200 I heard the voice of > Dario Niedermann, and lo! it spake thus: > > > > I still think that - if the other WMs let users focus the window > > anyway - ctwm probably should too. > > I wouldn't per se rule it out. I just wouldn't want to do it offhand > without being fairly sure of the implications (and it would take a > little care in a ctwm-internals sense to avoid side effects).
Doesn't the ICCM say explicitly that a window should ask for focus and otherwise it won't get it? See http://tronche.com/gui/x/icccm/sec-4.html#s-4.1.7 : It discusses the WM_HINTS and WM_TAKE_FOCUS' presence in the WM_PROTOCOLS property: The four input models and the corresponding values of the input field and the presence or absence of the WM_TAKE_FOCUS atom in the WM_PROTOCOLS property are listed in the following table: Input Model Input Field WM_TAKE_FOCUS ---------- ----------- ------------- No Input False Absent Passive True Absent Locally Active True Present Globally Active False Present Passive and Locally Active clients set the input field of WM_HINTS to True , which indicates that they require window manager assistance in acquiring the input focus. No Input and Globally Active clients set the input field to False , which requests that the window manager not set the input focus to their top-level window. The original test program would be the "No Input" case, and the modified one "Passive". What "Locally Active" semantically means exactly doesn't become quite clear to me... -Olaf. -- ___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert -- The Doctor: No, 'eureka' is Greek for \X/ rhialto/at/xs4all.nl -- 'this bath is too hot.'
pgpEbMSWSusrY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
