On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:04:32PM -0500, Dana Jansens wrote:
> On 3/4/08, Nathaniel Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:55:25PM -0800, Grant Patterson wrote:
> > > Dana Jansens wrote:
> > > >There are no other data.l[] elements, only 5. That said, the data.s[]
> > > > elements should be more than enough and allow for more things to be
> > > > added in the future, but I realize every other hint exclusively uses
> > > > data.l[]. Anyone else have an opinion about this?
> > > >
> > > I like the idea of using the 16-bit elements so there's room for
> > expansion.
> > > While I can't see any reason for this now, there might be some flags an
> > app
> > > would want to set to further define window manager behavior. Changed.
> >
> >
> > Oh, please don't, there are enough bizarre and surprising
> > inconsistencies in the X world as it is. (And this would require a
> > whole new special case in at least my code.)
> >
> > If you want future expandability, without using a new atom, then do it
> > properly -- mark some fields as "if this field is non-zero, then
> > discard the event" and some as "if this field is non-zero, then
> > pretend the field is zero anyway", all that complex cruft.
> > Alternatively, just accept that the way we do future expansion is by
> > adding a new, extended atom, a la _NET_WM_STRUT{,_PARTIAL}...
>
> This change was for the client message, which cannot be expanded in
> the future. The property itself would remain CARDINAL 32bit typed.
Yes, that is one of the inconsistencies I was referring to. (The
other is that every other message in the spec uses format=32.)
> It sounds to me like you misunderstood what was being made 16bit
> fields.
I don't *think* I did, and nothing you've said has made me think
otherwise? I am using "expandability" in the general sense of "adding
new capabilities to the spec", not in the narrow sense of "adding more
bytes at the end of a property".
Ultimately either approach works, of course, and I don't expect my
having to write extra code in my event handling routine[1] to weigh
*very* heavily on others (though it does seem to be the only data
point being advanced ATM). But someone has to speak up in the name of
taste and consistency; it's not like X has such an abundance of it to
spare. (At the very least, if we do make it a 16-bit message
can we put a capital-letter warning in the spec pointing this out?
Implementors are just going to bark their shins on it otherwise, and
setting people up for hurt shins seems mean to me.)
[1] The code I have now can only handle client messages with format 32
because, well, that's the only sort of client message that actually
exists in the wild ATM.
-- Nathaniel
--
Electrons find their paths in subtle ways.
_______________________________________________
wm-spec-list mailing list
wm-spec-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list
