Collaboration on standard Wayland protocol extensions

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On 31 March 2016 at 00:16, Drew DeVault <sir at cmpwn.com> wrote:
> Simply because xrandr was/is a poorly implemented mess doesn't mean that
> we are going to end up making a poorly implemented mess. We have the
> benefit of hindsight. After all, xorg is a poorly implemented mess but
> we still made Wayland, didn't we? (Though some could argue that we've
> just ended up with a well implemented mess...)

X and Wayland protocols have very different design principles guiding
them. X (often by necessity) exposes as much as possible of its
internal workings to clients, and allows total external manipulation.
That's not the case for Wayland, so what you're proposing is a
significant departure.

Cheers,
Daniel