Sorry, I messed up my quoting, cutting down the mail =.= I wanted to keep the part that ended in:
> Yes, but I think this reinforces my point. If an IVI, phone or > set-top-box compositor suddenly started sticking decorations on the > surfaces it found, it wouldn't be useful. Saying 'but the clients > never asked _not_ to be decorated' wouldn't really help you get out of > it either. Which is in a specialised environment that usually wants no deco (probably fullscreen shell by default etc.) but may run xdg-shell for reasons. On 2018/3月/18 03:40, Markus Ongyerth wrote: > On 2018/3月/18 01:45, Daniel Stone wrote: > > Hi Drew, > > > > On 15 March 2018 at 16:53, Drew DeVault <s...@cmpwn.com> wrote: > > >> > In fact, I have done so. Before we started working on this protocol, > > >> > Sway did exactly this. We have provided users the means of overriding > > >> > the approach to decorations, including what ends up being double > > >> > decorations sometimes. > > >> > > >> OK, but that doesn't seem like the kind of user experience to aim for > > >> ... ? > > > > > > Yeah, it's not ideal. The impetus for this protocol is to solve this > > > problem by getting software written by both camps to negotiate. It's > > > clear we're not going to get either side to agree to buy into the other, > > > so in the interests of the user we're trying to accomodate both. > > > > I understand that, and the compromise is good. But my view here is > > that compositors sticking server-side decorations on unwilling clients > > are the ones upsetting the status quo. Your view seems to be that > > there _is_ no status quo, so either approach is equally valid in the > > absence of explicit negotiation. > I think we have quite different ideas of what this situation would look like. > The (specialised) compositor doing things that don't fit it's environment is > something I wouldn't expect. > > If a set-top-box or phone wanted to run e.g. gvim it wouldn't want that to > draw it's own decorations, which it would do in the normal case. > And if a specialised application was run on a "normal desktop" compositor > (for > whatever reason), the provided SSD would be the easiest way for it to support > this. (I kind of doubt they use xdg-shell for those though) > > I'm interested in where this disparity in worries stems from. > Do you go by the asumption that the compositor might change in these > settings, > while the clients stay specialised? > > Cheers, > ongy
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel