Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec

Christian Hammond chipx86 at
Sat Jun 13 15:11:52 PDT 2009

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23 at>wrote:

> On 06/13/2009 02:26 PM, Christian Hammond wrote:
> > They know my stance on this one. Upstream libnotify and
> notification-daemon
> > will always support actions.
> Might be a little OT for xdg-list, but: would you be interested in
> adding support to libnotify (or accepting a patch) to query for the
> 'actions' capability, and if the daemon doesn't support it,
> transparently convert notifications with actions into dialog boxes (and
> proxy GtkDialog::response to NotifyNotification::action-invoked and
> ::closed appropriately)?  Would be great to avoid having to write
> special-case code in apps to handle daemons that doesn't support
> actions, and I'd bet the Ubuntu guys would be happier to not have to
> support actions at all for compatibility.

I'll definitely support querying for the actions capability. There's a patch
that was submitted (which I'll try to get in soon) that checks for
individual capabilities.

I would support libnotify popping up a dialog when actions aren't supported,
but I'm not ready to do that, specifically because I'm still against
Ubuntu's notification-daemon replacement not supporting actions. As you'll
see in another e-mail I just sent, the original intention was for graphical
daemons (notification-daemon being the only one in existence when we wrote
the spec) to support actions, and console/file loggers (something we
considered building early on) to not support actions.


Christian Hammond - chipx86 at
Review Board -
VMware, Inc. -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the xdg mailing list