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

[Aaron J. Seigo]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Brian J. Tarricone wrote:
> both ends: as an app developer, and as a notifications daemon developer.

as an app developer and a notifications daemon developer, you ought to truly 
be concerned about this issue and taking it quite seriously: the mechanism you 
are currently supporting jeopardizes all of your work and efforts.

> > I understand why you consider this busywork, but not all coding is fun.
>
> Definitely true.  Bugfixing isn't fun either, but I'm happy to do that
> when there's a clear benefit.  (Ok, maybe "happy" isn't quite the right
> word, but you get the idea.)  Changing an interface name solely for
> appearance's sake doesn't fit into my conception of "clear benefit."

there are technical reasons i'd like to see this happen, and i've already 
pointed them out a few times now. as usual, that gets ignored, which is not 
reassuring.

BUT, i'm willing to compromise on that as well and accept an inferior result 
for pragmatic reasons. in turn i _need_ to know that this won't happen again.

> > I don't remember that statement (long thread) but I can see how you as a
> > late-comer would see that dbus namespace usage and could easily figure
> > it's a standard.  However, I would have thought when you failed to find
> > documentation of the spec on fd.o's web site you'd have proceeded
> > carefully
>
> Yes, that it was hosted on galago-project.org did give me pause.  But at

and that was a dire mistake on your part. i'd suggest taking some 
responsibility for it rather than arguing in its defense. then we can move on 
and improve the situation rather than argue about this.

> the time, IIRC, fd.o was having this big let's-disclaim-responsibility
> push to claim that fd.o standards aren't actually standards.  Hell, see

it's more likely because it's simply more convenient to host it on your own 
site where you don't have to ask someone for permission to work on a draft. 

fd.o has control put into place in all the wrong places.

people should be free and encouraged to host drafts and experimental work 
somewhere we can all get to them.

it should be an additional set of steps to go from that to being an agreed 
upon specification.

right now, it's pretty hard to get anything anywhere near fd.o's website or 
git repo (several examples of that recently), but it's blazingly easy to use 
org.freedesktop or other shared properties in implementation.

it's completely backwards.

> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications right now -- it says in
> big letters at the top "These are not really standards."  So it was hard

and the link to that page from http://www.freedesktop.org is "standards". this 
is the hypocrisy i am trying to root out. let's be honest, let's be forthright 
and let's fix this thing.

> to say what constituted a good idea to implement... having
> "org.freedesktop." at the front of its interface name seemed like a
> decent enough criterion.

in other words, they tricked you by misappropriating a resource they did not 
have rights to. if i were you, i'd feel a bit betrayed by that.

it also shows how fd.o's lack of documentation and transparency is downright 
dangerous. it got you to make an incorrect decision upon which you based an 
effort in which you spent a lot of time and effort.

> did.  Who's talking about being dishonest, mmm?

can i just ask that we stop trying to point out who's being individually 
dishonest or pulling "dick moves" or whatever? fd.o as a community organ has 
enough institutionalized dishonesty and dick-ness for us all to share equally 
in.

so let's try and get on track and create solutions, not bicker like school 
yard children. we have a serious set of issues here that deserve our respect 
and attention.

> Anyway, I'm kinda getting tired of this discussion.  It seems clear to
> me that I'm not really getting my point across (which is no one's fault
> but my own) and I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, so... that's
> it, I guess.  Feel free to change the name; I'm sure I'll grudgingly
> update xfce4-notifyd whenever I get around to it or someone submits a

that's really not what i, personally, want as a result. i don't want more 
thuggery forcing people to do things. in this i'm sure we feel the same way; 
and i'm asking that the various stakeholders here actually ensure that we can 
move beyond thuggery and trickery.

-- 
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 : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20090625/fac0a602/attachment.pgp