Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec

Lennart Poettering mzkqt at
Mon Jun 15 05:38:56 PDT 2009

On Mon, 15.06.09 11:38, Mirco Müller (mirco.mueller at wrote:

> Am Samstag, den 13.06.2009, 23:18 +0200 schrieb Aurélien Gâteau:
> > > 3.  The Ubuntu spec adds a 'sound-themed' hint, while we already have 
> > > 'sound-file'.  I'd suggest just overloading 'sound-file' to take either 
> > > a sound theme name or a sound file.  Implementations that only support a 
> > > full path will simply fail to play it; no big deal.  With 'overloading', 
> > > implementations don't have to handle Yet Another Hint.  Downside: apps 
> > > wishing to provide a sound theme name plus a fallback sound file path 
> > > won't be able to.  Is that a big deal?  (There's also the cosmetic 
> > > question as to what "sound-themed" logically means.  It should be 
> > > something like "sound-name" or "themed-sound-name".)
> > 
> > This is only present on the wiki page, notify-osd does not support sound
> > at all at the moment. I believe this is just a mistake.
> 	notify-osd not yet supporting sound (via libcanberra) is a "mistake" on
> my behalf. I just wasn't able to finish it in time. It's still on the
> ToDo-list though.

The big question of course is whether it should be the bubble daemon
or the triggering application that actually calls into
libcanberra. The former would have the advantage that the event sound
could be attached to the actual bubble window, and ovveride as such
the builtin window sounds. The latter would have the advantage that it
could set from within the application's context every property on the
event sound it might feel necessary.

I am leaning towards saying that the event soundshould be triggered
from the bubble daemon, but I am not entirely sure I must admit.


Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

More information about the xdg mailing list