[PATCH wayland-protcols v3] unstable: add xdg-toplevel-decoration protocol

[Daniel Stone]

Hi,

On 15 March 2018 at 15:12, Drew DeVault <sir at cmpwn.com> wrote:
> On 2018-03-15  3:04 PM, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
>> It seems to me that there is no harm in restating that clients are required
>> to implement CSD inside a protocol which permits adding a separate,
>> optional method of window decoration.
>>
>> Note that it is not an assumption that clients/compositors "support both"
>> modes, it's a hard requirement that clients/compositors support CSD. If
>> there is some confusion about this due to other protocols not explicitly
>> stating that CSD is required then this can easily be remedied by adding
>> such clauses.
>
> Sorry for the confusion. My point is that Wayland does not and has never
> required clients to show client side decorations.

In the most strict technical terms, you're right.

> The only connection is
> a rather loose one specified in xdg-shell. In practice, clients and
> compositors alike are free to do whatever they want with decorations.

You could write a compositor which put decorations on everything
unless explicitly instructed not to, and claim victory in the name of
technical correctness. Even though it's double-decorating GTK+, EFL,
Weston, and pretty much everything deployed under the sun.

> We
> should not formalize a requirement to behave any particular way. This
> just provides a means of communicating each side's preferences.

We already have a specification, which is what every client expects:
that clients are responsible for the decorations (or absence thereof).
We now have a new protocol which allows the client and server, when
both agree, to have the server take responsibility for drawing (or not
drawing) the decorations. And that's fine, but why try to retcon
history as if the past several years never existed, just because you
disagree with it?

Cheers,
Daniel