Proposing the StatusNotifier specification

Aurélien Gâteau aurelien.gateau at
Thu Jan 21 05:41:31 PST 2010

Dan Winship wrote:
> On 01/20/2010 08:25 AM, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
>> Having applications control visualization means you can have N different
>> behaviors, leading to inconsistency. This is what happens with the
>> current x-embed protocol.
> It happens with StatusNotifier too; if you have a mix of KDE-based and
> GNOME-based StatusNotifierItems, and they all implement pop up menus on
> Activate, then you'll have Qt menus on the KDE Items, and Gtk menus on
> the GNOME Items.

True, but it's a first step in the right direction. with
StatusNotifierItem, desktop shells can start to do interesting work with
those icons.

> Of course, dbusmenu/libappindicator fix that, but at the cost of
> restricting what sorts of visualizations are possible. But IMHO that's a
> Good Thing. A spec that says "visualizations support pop-up menus, but
> you have to let the visualization draw the menu itself" is vastly more
> useful to me than one that says "visualizations might support emiting a
> signal letting you draw whatever you want, but then again, maybe they
> don't".

We plan to propose dbusmenu adoption by FDo as well at some point. But
dbusmenu is the second step to this work on the system tray/notification


More information about the xdg mailing list