Re: Geometry handling+reporting problems under ICEWM

"corvid" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.dillo.devel
Message-ID <20110806221757.GB15738@local>
Walter wrote:
>   I don't know if this is a problem with ICEWM on my machine or dillo.
> I've only seen it with dillo, so I assume that's the source.  I'm
> running Gentoo Linux (pure 64-bit mode) on an Intel i3, with ICEWM as
> the WM.  I have a 1920x1080 LCD monitor.  FLTK 1.3 and dillo3 are under
> /home/waltdnes/local, and PATH includes /home/waltdnes/local/bin  I did
> an "hg pull" last night, so this should be a recent version.
> 
>   In ~/.dillorc, I have...
> geometry=950x1050+960+0
> but pressing {ALT}{LEFT-MOUSE} on the dillo window frame reports a
> geometry of 850x949+956-24
> 
>   Looking at the display, I see two separate problems...
> 
> 1) Positioning
> ==============
>   The URL is flush against the top of the display, and the title bar
> is off the top of the display.  Changing ~/.dillorc to...
> geometry=950x1050+960+24
> results in the title bar being fully visible, like I expect.  I don't
> know whether it's a fixed offset of 24, or if dillo is ignoring the
> height of the WM window decoration when positioning at startup.
> 
> 2) Reporting size
> =================
>   When I click {ALT}{LEFT-MOUSE} on the frame, the reported size values
> are too small.  I specify size 950x1050 in the .dillorc geometry setting
> but the reported size is 850x949.  The *ACTUAL* size of the dillo window
> appears to be correct, but the *REPORTED* size is wrong.  I have an
> Opera window open that's 950x1050, and the dillo window overlays it
> almost exactly.  I maximized the dillo window using the WM maximize
> button on the upper right.  {ALT}{LEFT-MOUSE} on the dillo window frame,
> reports 1820x959-4-4 but my display is 1920x1080.  The reported geometry
> seems to have the x-coordinate consistently 100 pixels too small.  The
> y-coordinate is also too small, but I'm not sure of the exact amount, or
> whether it's constant.  My guess is that it's 101 pixels too small,
> after counting the -24 offset.

FLTK seems to have problems with geometry. If you go to the FLTK test/
directory and play with them, they misbehave similarly.
(I use fvwm, incidentally.)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.