Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec
chipx86 at chipx86.com
Sat Jun 13 14:26:40 PDT 2009
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23 at cornell.edu>wrote:
> On 06/13/2009 02:18 PM, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> > Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> >> 1. Passive vs. active notifications. I recall that notify-osd
> >> unilaterally decided that the 'actions' bit of the spec was Bad[tm] and
> >> that notifications should be entirely passive and not accept input.
> > I would rather not start a discussion on this subject: it has been
> > debated to death and people won't change their mind.
> That's rather closed-minded. But I suppose if Canonical wants to go
> their own way and ignore community consensus, it's free to do so.
They know my stance on this one. Upstream libnotify and notification-daemon
will always support actions. These are too useful and too many people want
them. So at that point, it's really up to the developers to choose what they
want, and whether they want to accept patches to get rid of actions or not.
And it's up to Canonical to decide if they want to maintain a patchset for
all apps to strip actions, or reverse their policy on that.
I'll fight any change to remove action support from the spec to the death :)
Christian Hammond - chipx86 at chipx86.com
Review Board - http://www.review-board.org
VMware, Inc. - http://www.vmware.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the xdg