Notification spec issue: Ability to assign an icon *and* an image to a notification
l.lunak at suse.cz
Thu Jun 25 01:28:30 PDT 2009
On Wednesday 24 of June 2009, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Aaron J. Seigo<aseigo at kde.org> wrote:
> > org.freedesktop.Notifications ... *sigh* sorry, but that's not
> > acceptable.
> > calling these "Notifications" is incorrect and will block future use of
> > that name for a proper notification spec. it was a mistake for whoever
> > decided it was a good idea to grab an org.freedesktop prefix in the first
> > place without first establishing it as a freedesktop.org accepted and
> > used system, and i don't think we need to reward that behavior at the
> > cost of the platform.
> What's wrong with keeping the current fd.o prefix if implementations
> are compatile?
I think Aaron has answered that very well already - it is endorsing the poor
approach the Galago project took when they "standardized" this. It's not the
first or the only case (I for example recently noticed that the Gtk port of
Webkit calls itself (lib)webkit, which I consider really arrogant), but I
really don't see why we should support this even officially in
Moreover, it is unnecessary. The specification (meaning something that
actually has some consensus) should use whatever is right. But, for backwards
compatibility, there shouldn't be a big problem with it also saying something
like "In order to support old clients, implementations can also provide the
same service under the name org.freedesktop.Notifications. This name is
however deprecated and may be replaced in the future with a proper
notification system, so all clients are strongly encouraged to use the proper
No big deal, and it's nothing new. E.g. the desktop file spec has mentions of
KDE keys, since it first started as a KDE-only thing and then got
standardized. I doubt a bit GNOME has bothered to implement backwards
compatibility for it, yet the desktop spec worked just fine for both. The
same with the application startup notification spec, and I'm sure I could
find more examples.
It's not a big work either. Servers take another dbus service name and
provide the same there, clients check if the proper name is available, if
not, they try the deprecated one. Even if the incorrectly taken bus name gets
somewhen later used for a proper notification system, it's not going to
happen tomorrow, and by the time it happens it probably won't matter much.
Not to mention that those old clients are likely to face much worse
compatibility problems by that time than just this.
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o. e-mail: l.lunak at suse.cz , l.lunak at kde.org
Lihovarska 1060/12 tel: +420 284 084 672
190 00 Prague 9 fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic http://www.suse.cz
More information about the xdg