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

[Drew DeVault]

On 2018-03-15  3:16 PM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> 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.

In fact, I have done so. Before we started working on this protocol,
Sway did exactly this. We have provided users the means of overriding
the approach to decorations, including what ends up being double
decorations sometimes.

> 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?

I don't think I'm being overtly "technically strict" in my
interpretation of the standard. This assumption hasn't really been true.
Take Xwayland, for example, a shell where the compositor has always been
expected to handle decorations.

There are also other clients in the wild which are not amenable to
client side decorations. mpv comes to mind, there was a big debate over
it and to date it still doesn't support CSD (it uses xdg-shell).

The "requirement" has never been as strong as you're implying, and
certainly has never been expressed in the protocols.

--
Drew DeVault