Notification spec issue: Ability to assign an icon *and* an image to a notification

Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gateau at
Wed Jun 24 12:15:23 PDT 2009

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> the correctness issue:
> these are not notifications, they are a subset of notifications. what do we 
> call a spec that actually does notifications? FullNotifications? there is no 
> point in collaborating if there is no collaboration, and in this case it's 
> pretty evident that the service is incorrectly named which will lead to a 
> pretty jangled system later on.

In fact I just realized the name can be considered correct. After all,
this spec defines a notification as composed of an icon, an image, a
title, a summary and a sound. Sure the icon and the image are only
visual, but nothing prevents someone from implementing a text-to-speech
server which would play the summary, title and sound.

> the community governance issue:
> this service name under the fd.o namespace was hijacked without consensus, and 
> that's simply not on. the implications of "first come, first serve, no 
> collaboration needed, forced it on the rest" is completely broken behavior and 
> shows a complete disregard for the entire concept of using a shared namespace 
> and working towards shared standards. anyone who implemented 
> "org.freeesktop.Notifications" did so a their own risk as it was _not_ within 
> their purview to simply claim that service name in what is a shared namespace.
> consider the ramifications of me going and registering 
> org.freedesktop.SystemTray or even org.gnome.SystemTray just because i can. 
> that simply doesn't work as a mechanism.
> using org.freedesktop.Notifications was a mistake, one that set up an 
> absolutely horrible precedent. along with similar irresponsible actions we 
> seen over the years here, it threatened fd.o's ability to legitimately be 
> called shared and participatory. this is not theoretical: i've had to 
> vigorously defend fd.o to certain people in KDE who cite such behaviour, this 
> spec being one actual example of it, as proof that fd.o is _not_ collaborative 
> and is _not_ in our best interests.
> at some point we have to start taking this whole "designing a shared platform" 
> thing seriously or else just give up and go create our separate silos, screw 
> the user and see who can get to spec definition first, collaboration 
> unnecessary, gold-rush style. granting exception upon exception to proper 
> behavior in this forum is not productive.
> if it's a painful exercise in learning what collaboration actually means for 
> those who jumped on org.freedesktop.Notifications, so be it. perhaps in future 
> people will take it this all a bit more seriously and exercise responsible 
> behaviour instead of laissez faire cowboyism. it would certainly help with the 
> legitimacy of fd.o as a shared organ.

So, in order to punish people who incorrectly used the org.freedesktop
namespace, you want to impose a rewrite to everyone involved? I am
pretty sure the author of the Xfce implementation for example has
nothing to do with the incorrect use of the namespace. And what about
users or third-party developers who wrote scripts or code which show
notifications using dbus-send? why punish them as well?


More information about the xdg mailing list