Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec
aurelien.gateau at canonical.com
Sat Jun 13 15:04:16 PDT 2009
Brian J. Tarricone 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.
What I wanted to say is that I read a lot of discussions on that issue
and I learned nothing positive ever come out of those, so I'd rather
talk about icons, markup and other things instead.
The spec says actions are optional and I don't think Canonical wants to
have this changed.
(Also note that I have personally nothing to do with the choice to go
action-less, I was not even working for Canonical at the time of this
More information about the xdg