On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 08:37:13AM +0200, Jani H. Lahtinen wrote: > ext Anselm R. Garbe wrote: > >But I agree that the additional layer called 'tabs' are a bad > >idea after all and that they make the concept more and > >unecessarily complex. In my opinion, tabs should be dropped in > >general, because we have already the structural layer called > >page. If anything doesn't fits into a page, just create a new > >page.
> I disagree. I prefer to have tabs. For example when I use matlab, it > would be extremely nice to have one frame for the code and a couple of > frames for figures which can be tabbed. Similarily for the webbrowser > (Firefox has tabs of its own of course). As I expressed earlier I think > that a page is simply a tab for the whole screen. Restricting the way > people can use the wm sounds to me to be against the dynamic concept. > How can it be dynamic if the user is forced to use it in a particular > way? Did you not write on the wiki "not the user's job to have to set up > some specialized layout that will only work for one specific work > scenario."? Now you want to do the opposite on the page level. I feel > that restricting the options makes the wm less dynamic. To me, there is no (major) difference in having several tabbed clients in one page, or each client on a different page - in both cases you only see the client/page you selected per time - not the others. On the other hand, we plan to integrate tagbars and extended stacking features, which fully replace the pros of tabs with a nearly equivalent functionality, but without adding an additional layer, just only using the trick, that you might think of vertical tabs (which are tagbars representing a hidden client) instead of horizontal ones. Regards, -- Anselm R. Garbe ><>< www.ebrag.de ><>< GPG key: 0D73F361 _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://wmii.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wmii
