Proposing the StatusNotifier specification
aurelien.gateau at canonical.com
Wed Jan 20 05:25:42 PST 2010
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 10:44 -0800, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> the semantics of the operations as realized in a given visualization are not
>> overly specified to purposefully allow for flexibility in the visualization.
>> yes, there is an assumption here that those writing those visualizations
>> aren't idiots and are able to do their job with a bare minimum of competency.
>> i hope that isn't too much to ask.
> Don't you see how totally incongruent your position is ? You say that
> the old systray has been abused, and thus all freedom needs to be taken
> away from the application writers. And then you turn around and ask for
> total blanket freedom to be given to the 'visualization' writers,
> because 'they aren't idiots'.
The difference between lies in the fact that on a given machine, the
user runs N applications, but only one host (or if there are multiple
hosts, they are most likely multiple instances of the same implementation).
Having applications control visualization means you can have N different
behaviors, leading to inconsistency. This is what happens with the
current x-embed protocol.
On the other hand, if the host is in control of the visualization, it
can provide a consistent behavior among the N status items. Sure KDE
host may behave in a different way than the GNOME host, but for the user
the behavior of all application status items on his desktop will be
More information about the xdg