Categories for the specifications

Vincent Untz vuntz at
Wed Mar 28 12:55:23 PDT 2007


Looking at we have
specifications categorized in the following categories:

 + Draft specifications that have pretty good de facto
 + Draft specifications that are new and not yet widely used, though
   they may be used by one or more desktops or desktop applications
 + Proposed X extensions
 + Specifications currently in the planning/requirements-gathering
 + Retracted Specifications

It seems to me this is far from optimal. I've seen multiple times people
linking to some specs and believing they were some widely accepted fdo
specs, while it was only a document written by somone two years ago...

I'm proposing this:

Stable specifications:
 Low-Level: DnD, XEmbed, X clipboard explanation, UTF8_STRING
 Desktop level: WM spec, desktop entry spec, menu spec, desktop base
                directory spec, icon theme spec, thumbnail, shared
                mime database, startup notification spec, file uri spec,
                clipboard manager spec, trash spec
(I'm a bit worried about the "stable specifications" name, since some of
the spec are still being updated, but in a compatible way... feel free
to propose a better name)

Specifications that are still being developed but have a good de facto
 icon naming spec, xsettings, xds, system tray, recent file, clipboard
 extension spec, cursor conventions spec, autostart spec, power
 management spec, xesam

Specifications being written, and that are not endorsed yet:
 ghns spec, and all the specs that I forgot to mention (I'm lazy ;-))

Retracted specifications:
 desktop color scheme spec

It's probably a good idea to mention on the page of each spec the
current status of the spec.

Also, I'm not sure why we are linking to some stuff here: why should we
have the proposed X extensions here? Also, why XBEL?

Does this make sense? If yes, I'll do all the necessary changes.


Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.

More information about the xdg mailing list