On 10/24/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:06:43 +0400 "Oleg Sukhodolsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> But results you will have may differ from the area which WM consider
> as workarea.
correc - the wm gets to decide how to figure it out. the user then gets to tell
the wm what algorithm or method to use (minimum area, generous, shaped, maximum
etc. etc.)
So, if we want to be consistent with WM we have to use _NET_WORKAREA,
but it doesn't work for Xinerama and this returns us to beginning of
the discussion :(
Oleg.
> Oleg.
>
> On 10/24/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:06:57 +0400 "Oleg Sukhodolsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > babbled:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I need to know workarea, but it looks like it doesn't work well for
> > > Xinerama : (
> > >
> > > I've found couple discussions on this subject:
> > >
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2003-March/msg00003.html
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2004-March/msg00000.html
> > >
> > > So, are there any plans to enhance the spec to work well with Xinerama?
> >
> > personally i think workarea is not that useful - "work area"(s) can be
> > calculated FROM known obsctacles on screens (like panels, etc. etc.). all
> > you need is a way of providing virtual obstacles.
> >
> > > Thanks, Oleg.
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
