[Xcb] Tiny cleanup patch that removes some code duplication

[Barton C Massey]

Your comments are quite right, as usual.  We need to set
both EWMH and old ICCCM properties so that legacy as well as
modern window managers (etc) can be "the best they can be".

What do we want to do about providing EWMH support in util?
Julien, you don't seem to think we should just push it into
icccm; should we have a separate ewmh library?  If so,
should it be the one that should support back-compatibility
props.  And if so, should anyone ever use icccm, or should
we just delete it?

	Bart

In message <20080920124809.GD32721 at abydos.adm.naquadah.org> you wrote:
> At 1221913931 time_t, Henning Sten wrote:
> > Would it be possible to just consider WM_NAME to be a legacy thing and th=
> en set only _NET_WM_NAME? Do we know any programs that would break from doi=
> ng this? As far as I understand almost all window managers implement at lea=
> st basic EWMH like _NET_WM_NAME?
> 
> Yes but you can't be sure, and anyway it's not very hard to support
> both, so=E2=80=A6
> 
> > I also wonder about; isn't WM_NAME a ICCCM thing while _NET_WM_NAME is a =
> EWMH thing? If so, does it really make sense to start to mix EWMH concepts =
> into the xcb-util/icccm directory? Or should this directory be renamed into=
>  xcb-util/wmhints or xcb-util/icccm_ewmh or similar? Would it be better to =
> create xcb-util/ewmh directory next to the xcb-util/icccm? This might lead =
> to quasi similar code to two places though.
> 
> I agree, EWMH stuff should not be in icccm.
> 
> > Even after browsing around the EWMH/ICCCM specs and wikipedia etc, I'm st=
> ill a little bit confused about these specs. For example:
> >=20
> > * Is EWMH only an extension to ICCCM or is it a replacement for ICCCM?
> 
> Extension. Read full EWMH specs and you'll see they refers to ICCCM for
> some stuff (like window hints, etc).
> 
> > * Currently most programs show duplicate properties in xprop (i.e. both W=
> M_NAME and _NET_WM_NAME etc). Is it planned to stop having duplicate proper=
> ties eventually? What is holding this back?
> 
> I don't think so.
> I really like to drop such old broken standards, but well, it's gonna be
> hard. ;-)