Krueger, Wulf wrote:
> If so, the WMs are broken.
One application [XEmacs] misbehaves when its window is being
maximised. Not a single other application I've ever seen in a decade
of Linux usage or so does in *this* way. So your conclusion is the WMs
are broken? I beg to differ.
What is the basis for your conclusion? Saying "it works with other
applications" doesn't meant that there isn't a bug, only that the bug
doesn't affect other applications.
How many of those other applications specify a resize increment?
Even if they were, even if kwin and metacity *were* broken (not to
speak of several others I've used during those years) - are we talking
about usability here or about standards compliance? Do you want to
give your users a satisfying experience or do you want to enforce
It isn't about /enforcing/ anything. However there is a limit to how
much fault-tolerance you can provide.
IME, the XEmacs development process tends to give less credence to the
"follow the rest of the herd" idiom. Mostly because it isn't a
Linux/Gnome/KDE application; it is supposed to run on any Unix system,
including those which follow standards in preference to trends.
Around here, the ICCCM actually counts for something. It isn't
considered scripture, but nor is it considered irrelevant. In general,
compatibility with broken software (even really, really popular broken
software) isn't achieved at the expense of compatibility with correct
software (even if it's relatively obscure).
Don't get me wrong. I love standards. My job is to define,
and enforce standards. Standards butter my bread. But as a user I want
my software to support me doing my job. I don't want to have to
remember not to maximise a window.
Sure. But the issue is whether you should be taking this up with the
application developers or with the WM developers.
Glynn Clements <glynn(a)gclements.plus.com>