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

Jeff Mitchell mitchell at
Thu Jun 25 12:11:37 PDT 2009

Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
>> The question is what's more important to you: is it backwards compatibility,
>> or is it equal treatment for all parties with all the community implications?
> Backwards-compat, definitely.  I'm sorry, but grow up.  We live in a 
> world where things don't always work out as they should.

By this logic, you should be using Windows.  Microsoft takes on huge
burdens to maintain backwards compatibility (see an interesting blog
called The Old New Thing).  Sure, it's not the best OS out there, but
things don't always work out as they should.

> Accept that, 
> move on, and try to help ensure that the problems don't happen the next 
> time.  Breaking existing software isn't a part of that.

That's a great thing about open standards and OSS.  There can always be
a next time.  In fact, I believe this discussion is talking about the
"next time" in this situation.

>> If keeping backwards compatibility will cause certain developers to reduce
>> future cooperation and standardization efforts (as Aaron indicated), I wonder
>> if it's more important than breaking stuff but going forward with mutual goals.
> If those certain developers can't handle not getting their way, then, 
> frankly, I don't particularly care what they do or don't do.

Again, you boil this discussion down to dishonest simplicities.  The
problem is not certain developers not getting their way, the problem is
the ineffectiveness of fd.o at reaching community consensus, agreeing on
standards, and enforcing them (in whatever manner possible or appropriate).

If fd.o has no ability to actually foster cross-platform,
cross-environment, cross-application, and/or cross-library
communication, then it brings up the question: what's the point?

fd.o is supposed to help create community-derived standards, not serve
as a dumping ground for other people's standards.

In the proper context, I think it is more understandable why developers
watching this situation unfold might think twice about fd.o "standards"
if fd.o doesn't help reach a consensus that actually considers all
voices and needs.

> Right, exactly.  Forgive me if I'm mainly considering *my* psychological 
> reasonings and emotions here, but they do exist as well.  I understand 
> that some people are rightfully annoyed at being mostly left out or 
> ignored when the current spec "hijacked" a name in the org.freedesktop 
> namespace, but that doesn't mean they should feel free to "retaliate" by 
> making extra work for those of us who have invested time in the old 
> interface.

Again with "retaliation".  Believe it or not, the current (forced) spec
really isn't seen to be sufficient.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 261 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : 

More information about the xdg mailing list