Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: kk@shasta.tivoli.COM (Kerry Kimbrough)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: [spr3161] Can I get some information from the window manager
Message-ID: <9105031945.AA02131@shasta.tivoli.com>
Date: 3 May 91 19:45:29 GMT
References: <7597@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16


   > Could a WM without those decorations have complied by saying
   > that the width of the border, and the height of the title bar, is zero
   > (and leave it up to the application to figure out that a zero-height
   > title bar means "you don't get titles, so no matter how wide it is, a
   > specific title won't show up")?

Perhaps, but the logical extension of this approach is to make ICCCM the "union"
of   all  WM protocols. Whereas  the  ICCCM   aproach  is   more   conservative,
standarizing something like the "intersection" of all WM protocols. Conservative
is almost certainly better for an X standard, for which upward compatibility and
future extensions must be maintained for a rather long time. 

We may soon see a consolidation of WM concepts and an enlargement in the
"intersection" of common practice, in which case you can urge your friendly
neighborhood X Consortium to extend ICCCM.