Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Please stop rewriting history. The spec was proposed, flaws were pointed
> out in the review, and there was no willingness to address those flaws
> in any meaningful way.
The purported "flaws" were of 2 kinds:
* claims of underspecification that are irrelevant in practice because it
was obvious to everyone (other than GNOME, perhaps) how the intended
rendering looks like (similar to the XEmbed system tray icons, just without
the technical limitations of the XEmbed hack),
* change requests that would have broken compatibility with the existing
implementations of the protocol already in wide use for little to no
practical benefit, such as nitpicking about the names of some D-Bus methods.
It is no surprise that those "issues" were not "addressed".
And how is that different from all those specs coming from the GNOME camp,
that are always of the "take it or leave it" kind?
> You can consider it an 'excuse' all you want, but from my perspective,
> it was the right decision.
Thanks for showing again how GNOME does not give a darn about
interoperability with other desktops. (See also how BOTH the GTK+ theme
integration for Qt and the Qt/KDE theme integration for GTK+ are always
worked on exclusively by KDE developers.) Sometimes one has to make
compromises in the name of interoperability.
I don't see how it would make gnome-shell worse to just give the status
notifiers using the new protocol the same treatment given to the legacy
XEmbed ones (stuff them in the message tray by default, and let TopIcons
work with them)).
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
