Re: Compositing managers spec

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.
>
I think that we should try to build it a separate spec on top of EWMH,
because there still may be composite managers without a window manager
functionality. Having it in one spec can lead to a point where things get
mixed up, and it's not clear who (WM or CM), should be in charge for a
specific window property.

Composite managers will always want to have a finer differentiation of the
window type, than the current _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE types provide. I think
that something like _NET_CM_WINDOW_SUBTYPE could fullfill such task. If we
find a type description that makes also sense from the window manager point
of view, then we can define it as _NET_WM_WINDOW_TYPE window type.

Dennis