Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec

William Jon McCann william.jon.mccann at
Mon Jun 15 08:10:14 PDT 2009


On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Christian Hammond<chipx86 at> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23 at>
> 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 :)

Do you have a specific response to the problems that they describe at
the following?

I'd be very interested to see it.  I think that rationale is fairly
compelling actually.


More information about the xdg mailing list