wayland-protocols scope and governance

[Jonas Ådahl]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:52:32AM -0400, Drew DeVault wrote:
> On Wed Jun 19, 2019 at 8:38 AM Jonas Ådahl wrote:
> > > I'm okay with this definition, but I'll again mention that this wording
> > > makes a clear case for the wlr toplevel management protocol:
> > > 
> > > https://github.com/swaywm/wlr-protocols/blob/master/unstable/wlr-foreign-toplevel-management-unstable-v1.xml
> > > 
> > > This is your chance to object to a wording that would include this
> > > protocol.
> > 
> > s/configure surfaces/configure its surfaces/ would rule out accidentally
> > including external window manager like protocols into the xdg namespace.
> 
> How does xdg-foreign fit into this definition?

xdg-foreign is an edge case but IMHO it fits in the definition.
xdg-shell deals with stacking order of the dialogs of an application.
xdg-foreign extends this behaviour by allowing two clients to "act as
one". The current users are the xdg-desktop-portal backend, but it's
something that's needed for e.g. modal dialogs for out-of-process
plugins and similar things.

It's far from task bar like functionality, if that's what you are trying
to compare it to.

> 
> I see two courses of action for this problem:
> 
> a. Don't weasel word the xdg shell definition and accept that
>    xdg-foreign-toplevel-management fits. "Universal acceptance" is the
>    bar for the wp- prefix, but not xdg-. Just because e.g. GNOME wouldn't
>    implement it doesn't necessarily mean it's not a good fit - see also
>    xdg-decoration.

xdg-decoration is a perfectly good fit for "xdg-" IMO.

Again, I believe the definition should make it clear that it's for
applications, not desktop components. I'm not trying to weasel anything
here, I'm trying to avoid making anyone believe writing a task bar is
the same thing as writing an application that is expected to work
everywhere.

> b. Close the xdg namespace to new protocols.
> 
> There's also option c, which is weasel word it until the protocols
> anyone doesn't like aren't included and the protocols everyone does like
> are included, but I don't think that's worth our time to try and
> accomplish.

Lets not be childish; noone is trying to weasel anything here, and I
don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by implying that.


Jonas