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

[Markus Ongyerth]

Sorry, I messed up my quoting, cutting down the mail =.=

I wanted to keep the part that ended in:

> Yes, but I think this reinforces my point. If an IVI, phone or
> set-top-box compositor suddenly started sticking decorations on the
> surfaces it found, it wouldn't be useful. Saying 'but the clients
> never asked _not_ to be decorated' wouldn't really help you get out of
> it either.
Which is in a specialised environment that usually wants no deco (probably 
fullscreen shell by default etc.) but may run xdg-shell for reasons.

On 2018/3月/18 03:40, Markus Ongyerth wrote:
> On 2018/3月/18 01:45, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Hi Drew,
> > 
> > On 15 March 2018 at 16:53, Drew DeVault <sir at cmpwn.com> wrote:
> > >> > 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.
> > >>
> > >> OK, but that doesn't seem like the kind of user experience to aim for ... ?
> > >
> > > Yeah, it's not ideal. The impetus for this protocol is to solve this
> > > problem by getting software written by both camps to negotiate. It's
> > > clear we're not going to get either side to agree to buy into the other,
> > > so in the interests of the user we're trying to accomodate both.
> > 
> > I understand that, and the compromise is good. But my view here is
> > that compositors sticking server-side decorations on unwilling clients
> > are the ones upsetting the status quo. Your view seems to be that
> > there _is_ no status quo, so either approach is equally valid in the
> > absence of explicit negotiation.
> I think we have quite different ideas of what this situation would look like.
> The (specialised) compositor doing things that don't fit it's environment is 
> something I wouldn't expect.
> 
> If a set-top-box or phone wanted to run e.g. gvim it wouldn't want that to 
> draw it's own decorations, which it would do in the normal case.
> And if a specialised application was run on a "normal desktop" compositor (for 
> whatever reason), the provided SSD would be the easiest way for it to support 
> this. (I kind of doubt they use xdg-shell for those though)
> 
> I'm interested in where this disparity in worries stems from.
> Do you go by the asumption that the compositor might change in these settings, 
> while the clients stay specialised?
> 
> Cheers,
> ongy


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/wayland-devel/attachments/20180318/8a8e8edc/attachment.sig>