On Monday 28 of February 2005 19:34, Elijah Newren wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:11:57 +0100, Lubos Lunak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > and the less obvious that with even older apps the field may be > > uninitialized. It wasn't _that_ long ago when I added all those "other > > data.l[] elements = 0", and I think at least the GNOME implementation > > hadn't been doing this before this change. > > > > *checking* > > > > Slightly less than two years ago, actually. I wonder if we can start > > more or less ignoring such old implementations by now. > > Well, we've done so for things like _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW, right? If > we're really worried about this, then I think we'd have to rename > _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW and anything else that has had any fields added. > Personally, given that the _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW addition seems to be > fine, I think we should ignore these older implementations, just as we > have to ignore buggy clients that break the spec.
The difference with _NET_ACTIVE_WINDOW is that there's additionally the source indication field, which has only two non-trivial usable contents (1 or 2) when the timestamp field is used. But still, I think the change is fine. -- Lubos Lunak KDE developer --------------------------------------------------------------------- SuSE CR, s.r.o. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drahobejlova 27 tel: +420 2 9654 2373 190 00 Praha 9 fax: +420 2 9654 2374 Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz/ _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
