Desktop Notifications Spec 0.3

John (J5) Palmieri johnp at
Thu Sep 23 17:59:37 EEST 2004

On Thu, 2004-09-23 at 12:27 +0200, Dominik Smogór wrote:
> On Thursday 16 September 2004 06:30, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > Hey everyone.
> >
> > Mike Hearn and I are announcing version 0.3 of the desktop
> > notifications spec today. We're hoping for some discussion on it, as
> > some details will still need to be worked out. For the most part,
> > though, we feel this is nearly ready for use. Any implementations
> > using it now shouldn't have to change a whole lot by the time we have
> > the final draft.
> >
> > We are not providing reference implementations at this time, as Mike
> > is working on those but is for the most part without a network
> > connection for the next couple of weeks.
> >
> > The specification is currently available at:
> >
> >
> >
> > We are hoping that applications will start experimentally using the
> > specification so that real-world tests can be done.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christian
> Hey all XDG'ers. I have come to an idea, why don't we just move the whole 
> drawing responsibility on the client side (toolkit in practice) and only 
> standarize on critical minium of shared properties and behaviours like 
> position, conflict resolution, etc, etc. E.g. notification mechanism could 
> map a window and pass its id to the requesting app to draw in. This would let 
> to richer content to be put in notifications for application that need it 
> (themeable media players come into my mind) and doesn't burden simplier DM's 
> with code that can be handled by clients. Besides some fallback (is, app 
> would create popup completely on its own discretion) could be used for DM's 
> that doesn't support the spec yet. Consisiency issues can be handled the same 
> way as widget consistiency (compatible themes) and some negotiated advisory 
> document for toolkit authors. For applications that want clear separation 
> beetween server part and DM part a desktop component can be added that 
> translates system messages e.g. sent throuch dbus into proper popups. We 
> could also standarize this one and current spec would be perfectly suitable 
> for that purpose. But the separation leaves an escape path for apps "that 
> want more" without raising requirements for DMs to be compilant.
> What dou you think?
> Regads,
> DS.

This creates more work than it is worth.  I rather just send the message
and trust it will be displayed in a consistent method.  HTML with a
mandated style tags would be the best to allow for rich content.

John (J5) Palmieri
Associate Software Engineer
Desktop Group
Red Hat, Inc.

More information about the xdg mailing list