Fwd: Re: tigert's mockups and HTML

Lubos Lunak l.lunak at suse.cz
Wed Sep 22 15:46:22 EEST 2004

On Tuesday 21 of September 2004 23:11, Alex Graveley wrote:
> Hi Christian,
> I strongly believe using XEMBED is the right solution here. We should 
> take a hint from the success of the system tray spec.

 I don't. The "success" of the system tray spec has nothing to do with XEMBED, 
the spec is simply used because it's the only way of showing those small 
(mostly useless) icons in everybody's panel. In fact there are intentions in 
KDE to obsolete the XEMBED-based systray mechanism.

> Also, it's not as though anyone is proposing to formalize in this spec a
> set of gui guidelines around the content of the HTML/label-markup.
> So adding this to the spec is a way of saying ``just do whatever you
> want, make it look however you want, but do it using this technology''.
> This gives no real benefit over saying ``just do whatever you want'',
> and instead limits what people can accomplish.
> -Alex
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 12:14, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > Alternative thought: we could have a request which simply opens up a
> > window then docks arbitrary app-supplied widgetry using XEMBED into it.
> > The server manages window layout/stacking/animation, and the client
> > manages everything else.

 Alternative though: If this is moved so far, with almost everything done in 
the client, why not simply do it completely in the client? Then there's no 
need to have any server, case closed, issue solved.

 Not that I'm really suggesting this, but seriously, if the server would be 
just showing app something XEMBED-ed, what would be really its purpose?

Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
SuSE CR, s.r.o.  e-mail: l.lunak at suse.cz , l.lunak at kde.org
Drahobejlova 27  tel: +420 2 9654 2373
190 00 Praha 9   fax: +420 2 9654 2374
Czech Republic   http://www.suse.cz/

More information about the xdg mailing list