_NET_WORKAREA and Xinerama

[Oleg Sukhodolsky]

On 10/24/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <raster at rasterman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:06:43 +0400 "Oleg Sukhodolsky" <son.two at gmail.com>
> babbled:
>
> > But results you will have may differ from the area which WM consider
> > as workarea.
>
> correc - the wm gets to decide how to figure it out. the user then gets to tell
> the wm what algorithm or method to use (minimum area, generous, shaped, maximum
> etc. etc.)

So, if we want to be consistent with WM we have to use _NET_WORKAREA,
but it doesn't work for Xinerama and this returns us to beginning of
the discussion :(

Oleg.

> > Oleg.
> >
> > On 10/24/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <raster at rasterman.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:06:57 +0400 "Oleg Sukhodolsky" <son.two at gmail.com>
> > > babbled:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I need to know workarea, but it looks like it doesn't work well for
> > > > Xinerama : (
> > > >
> > > > I've found couple discussions on this subject:
> > > >
> > > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2003-March/msg00003.html
> > > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/wm-spec-list/2004-March/msg00000.html
> > > >
> > > > So, are there any plans to enhance the spec to work well with Xinerama?
> > >
> > > personally i think workarea is not that useful - "work area"(s) can be
> > > calculated FROM known obsctacles on screens (like panels, etc. etc.). all
> > > you need is a way of providing virtual obstacles.
> > >
> > > > Thanks, Oleg.