Notification spec issue: Ability to assign an icon *and* an image to a notification

Jeff Mitchell mitchell at
Thu Jun 25 12:00:58 PDT 2009

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> Thank you -- that's exactly how I feel like this conversation is going. 
>   As a notifications daemon implementer, I *really* don't appreciate 
> being told "hey, just because we're pissed off that this wasn't 
> standardised in the 'proper' way, you have to change how your app works 
> and make a new release, otherwise you won't be compatible with apps 
> going forward."  That's a dick move.

That statement isn't entirely honest.  The problem is not just (or even
mainly) that the spec wasn't standardized in the proper way, the problem
is that the spec isn't robust enough for the needs of some of the active
members of this community (whose voices were raised and ignored, with no
consensus or official spec ever finalized).

Keeping backwards-compatibility in the spec for a period of 1-2 years so
that app maintainers can code in some fairly straightforward changes
doesn't seem like an onerous burden (I don't see HAL apps complaining).
 "Breaking five years' worth of software" is not really an honest
statement either, unless you're talking about five years of unmaintained
software (considering that apps/libraries could have a long period of
time in which to transition, which would certainly be long enough for
maintained software to make that transition...and for unmaintained
software, that's why it's Open Source).

I don't think the "dick move" here is people raising the same objections
that they raised years ago.

> Perhaps I took a "risk" by implementing something that isn't a 
> community-blessed standard (apparently; I thought most people were happy 
> with it since it's been around some time without any new complaints that 
> I heard)

(Maybe people simply got tired of being ignored.)

> but telling me that it's my own damn fault doesn't make me 
> feel particularly inclined to redo some of my work to support a new spec.

I didn't see anyone say it was your own damn fault, but I might have
missed that; it's a long thread.  (Unless you're part of Galago, in
which case, yes, people are saying it's your own damn fault.)  The
message I've been hearing is not "those various apps/libraries should
have known better", rather "how can we make the spec what we need and
make the transition simple and relatively painless for apps and libraries?"

> appropriate level of consensus.  That's a shame, but it's done, and 
> can't be undone.  "Punishing" people for that now is just childish.

I haven't seen anyone state that they want to do this to punish the
Galago guys.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 

More information about the xdg mailing list