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

Aaron J. Seigo aseigo at
Thu Jun 25 12:52:54 PDT 2009

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> On 06/25/2009 05:08 AM, Jakob Petsovits wrote:
> > I don't see a push for "punishment", rather the push for not using the
> > org.freedesktop namespace for stuff where no consensus has been reached.
> Sorry, but any time someone makes more work for me for no good
> *practical* reason, it sure feels like punishment.

see the practical reason at the end of this email, but if you feel annoyed and 
"punished" by this, let me suggest this:

a) don't use a shared resource that has been misappropriated in the first 
place. that was _your_ choice and _your_ mistake. granted, fd.o has _not_ made 
it easy in the least to determine which is a legitimate use of org.freedesktop 
or not, and that is _our_ collective mistake.

b) the people who deserve your frustration are the people who put together the 
galago spec. they created this situation and have in the process screwed over 
a number of people. no matter which way this goes, some groups are getting the 
short end of the stick. that is a direct and inescapable result of the way the 
galago spec was done.

> > 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.  I really

this is not a situation i created. it's a situation that the galago spec 
writers created and the rest of the people here on fd.o allowed to continue. 
there's been a few years of discussion about this, it isn't new. so please 
don't levy some sort of blame on those of us who have been put into this 
situation by the actions of others.

> well: I do OSS as a hobby and have limited time for it.  I'd prefer to
> spend my time adding useful features to my software and fixing problems
> with it.  Doing search-and-replace on bus names (not even -- I'd have to
> *add* support for the new interface since I wouldn't want to break apps
> still using the old interface name) is useless make-work that wastes
> time that could be better spent.

this happens to be _why_ we ought to take a clear stand on this.

because the current (lack of) mechanism is a recipe to see you, me and others 
wasting our time as the platform is evolved in a completely random, non-
participatory manner.

> This kind of attitude makes *me* not want to be involved in the current
> process, though I'm trying to push past that in order to help ensure
> that the non-inclusiveness of original notifications standardisation
> isn't repeated.

how will you help ensure that?

> > I'm not saying which solution is the more sensible one, but keep in mind
> > that psychological reasonings can be just as important as technical
> > arguments, because in the end the technology is again made by people that
> > are led (also) by emotions, for better or worse.
> 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.

a) it's not retaliation to expect people to live up to basic requirements for 

b) i don't feel annoyed at being left out or ignored, i feel annoyed at 
someone helping themselves to a resource that we are supposed to be sharing. 
the word for that is "theft". that it happened most likely through an innocent 
lack of thought (which says a lot about the attitudes around fd.o held by 
some) does not change that one bit.

c) this particular request actually has a very real purpose behind it: it's 
confusing naming, and some of us would like to see a full notifications 
specification landed at some point that includes not just visual notifications

the request (c) should be justifiably considered due to (a) and (b)

Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : 

More information about the xdg mailing list