Re: Compositing managers spec

Nathaniel Smith wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 09:00:29PM +0100, Lubos Lunak wrote:
>> 
>>  Hello,
>> 
>>  I'd like to standardize few more things about compositing managers.
>>  Looking
>> at the spec, there are already few things in an added section, but it
>> almost looks like quickly hacked in and expecting that a WM and a CM have
>> to be the same (e.g. there should not be any _WM_ in the selection name).
>> So I thought the first thing to do should be to ask a couple of
>> questions:
>> 
>> - Are people fine with having it in one spec or should it be a separate
>> one building on top of EWMH? Some things are shared (e.g.
>> _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE), but some are clearly separate.
>> 
>> - Are people fine with using this list or should a separate one be
>> created?
> 
> Well, it makes sense to me:
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00557.html
> 
> The consensus of implementations seems to be moving towards WMs and
> CMs being the same thing anyway, and there's already at least one de
> facto, undocumented standard for CM behavior that "illegally" uses the
> EWMH-reserved _NET_WM namespace (_NET_WM_WINDOW_OPACITY).  Better to
> bless such things and bring them into the spec than let them
> proliferate.
I think that things like this should be standardized as _NET_CM_WINDOW_*.
> 
> (I think, though, that the _NET_WM_CM_Sn selection has "WM" in it
> because "_NET_WM" is the EWMH namespace, not because it's the "window
> manager" namespace, if that distinction makes sense.  So it doesn't
> bother me.)

If we decide to use the _NET_CM namespace for composite managers, then I
think that it could be also renamed to _NET_CM_Sn, but this also depends on
how many applications already use _NET_WM_CM_Sn to detect that a composite
manager is running.

Dennis