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

Lubos Lunak l.lunak at
Thu Jun 25 06:22:15 PDT 2009

On Thursday 25 of June 2009, Patryk Zawadzki wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Aaron J. Seigo<aseigo at> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 June 2009, you wrote:
> >> What's wrong with keeping the current fd.o prefix if implementations
> >> are compatile?
> >
> > what "wrong" is that fd.o is a shared namespace. you can experiment
> > within your own namespace all you want. using org.freedesktop means
> > something, or at least should mean something, pretty specific: this is
> > something we have consensus on and third parties can rely on it being use
> > as such. when we simply play dog-pile-on-the-dbus, it creates a very
> > uncomfortable situation where projects are faced with inconveniencing
> > third parties or adopting technologies that do not fit their needs at
> > all. worse yet, it creates races where one group will race to get their
> > library pushed out with an interface on org.freedesktop, creating
> > barriers to others working on similar things.
> Sure, this would all be valid had you reported these issues 5 years
> ago. Undoing the bad deed now actually is more evil than leaving
> things as they are. We'd be breaking 5 years worth of software just
> because we feel obliged to punish *someone*.

 As I've already said, there's no need to actually break things. Even 
technically, ever (at least if I get right all these dbus interfaces things 
and stuff, and even if I don't get it right, backwards compatibility of the 
rename can be still handled reasonably well in practice).

 And, of course, these issues were reported 5 years ago (or whenever it was 
exactly the Galago spec was proposed here). There was a rather big thread on 
this list, with no consensus, and with people objecting too. I remember that 
rather well, since I was one of the objecting people. I already pointed out 
back then that the spec wasn't acceptable for KDE for generic notifications. 
What was I to do more, given that they decided to ignore this? Back then it 
was just a "random" group of developers developing their own library. Even if 
you look now, can you see this spec anywhere in ?

 So, still anybody who has a good reason for not using a proper name?

Lubos Lunak
KDE developer
SUSE LINUX, s.r.o.   e-mail: l.lunak at , l.lunak at
Lihovarska 1060/12   tel: +420 284 084 672
190 00 Prague 9      fax: +420 284 028 951
Czech Republic

More information about the xdg mailing list