On March 14, 2018 7:33 PM, Drew DeVault <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2018-03-14 6:41 AM, Simon Ser wrote: > > > Since we assume CSD by default, this implies that any client must be able > > > to > > > do CSD, which should be explicitly stated here. > > > > It's already stated in the protocol description ("Note that even if > > the server supports server-side window decorations, clients must still > > support client-side decorations"). Is it necessary to write it one > > more time here? > > I don't think this is right. The protocol has nothing to say at all > about decorations, client side or not. A Wayland surface without CSD is > a valid Wayland surface on any compositor. I don't think we need to > explicitly require clients to handle CSD for that reason.
You're right, xdg-shell does mention client-side decorations, but never makes them mandatory. Clients not having decorations can use xdg-toplevel. However, the situation we'd like to avoid is clients wanting decorations not implementing CSD at all and relying on this protocol to show them via SSD. What about rewording this sentence to: Note that even if the server supports server-side window decorations, clients having decorations must still support client-side decorations. > The assumption is that the compositor implementing this protocol will > support both. > > -- > Drew DeVault --- Simon Ser https://emersion.fr _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
