Starting discussion on a new version of the notification spec
William Jon McCann
william.jon.mccann at gmail.com
Mon Jun 15 08:10:14 PDT 2009
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Christian Hammond<chipx86 at chipx86.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Brian J. Tarricone <bjt23 at cornell.edu>
>> 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
I'd be very interested to see it. I think that rationale is fairly
More information about the xdg