On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 10:14:31AM +0200, Dominik Vogt wrote: > On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 08:12:29AM +0200, Olivier Chapuis wrote: > > > However, I think we need a new style (as there is no standard > > way to detect that an application respect the EWMH spec). > > Having a style is not wrong anyway. > > > Any opinions/comments/objections? > > For a detection algorithm: > > 1) If the windows CR algorithm was set by a style or detected > before, use it. > > 2) If a window resizes itself to the *exact* size of the > display and the requested position of the client window is > either +0+0 or +border_width+border_height, put it at +0+0 > and make a decision about the algorithm it uses based on the > requested position. >
I am not sure to understand this one, can you be more precise? > 3) If a window resizes/positions itself so that interpreting its > position would shift it by exactly the width/height of the > left or top border, set the algorithm that would prevent this > shift (if possible). > > 4) If a window places itself in a way that would place it > exaclty on the border of the display, choose the algorithm > that keeps the border on screen. > I will add: if the window has _NET_WM_PID set use the ICCCM algo. > So we should have three styles (I don't like the term "legacy" > because it displays a certain arrogance of the wm-spec people > against tradition): > > MoveByProgramAlgorithm [SmartTraditional|SmartICCCM|ICCCM|Traditional] > > with "SmartTraditional" being the default (i.e. use above > algorithm and use "Traditional" by default). However, the names > of the styles are all bad (hard too understand). > I think that we cannot found good names here. Regards, Olivier -- Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>. To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To report problems, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
