On 5/26/05, Luke Schierer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 10:44:25AM +0200, Lubos Lunak wrote: > > > > Actually you cannot completely rely only on WM_CLASS even for non-broken > > apps. You can have several instances of Konqueror running which you should > > consider separate, you can have one instance of Konqueror running but > > showing > > several windows (which you again should consider separate), and you can have > > dialogs shown for Konqueror from other processes (kwallet can show a dialog > > asking for password that more or less belongs to the Konqueror window, the > > same way kcookiejar can show a dialog about cookies). KWin implements rather > > non-trivial (and hackish in places) logic that tries to guess which windows > > actually are related. > > It seems you are complaining not that WM_CLASS does not work, but > that it works too well! afterall, in your example, they are all > Konqueror windows, you just want them treated differently.
Hehe, my understanding of this conversation is basically "Applications implement the ICCCM spec extremely accurately--too bad the information it provides is useless/misleading in many cases." Is that correct? E.g. if a user launches another Mozilla window from the taskbar, they think of it as a separate instance of the application. As an implementational detail, the Mozilla developers have the second instance tell the first to open a new window, in order to save on resources. According to the spec, both windows _are_ from the same instance of the app, so the WM_CLASS doesn't differentiate the two. Thus, the spec exposes implementational details that are counter-intuitive to user expectation. _______________________________________________ wm-spec-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
