On Sunday 31 August 2014 13:17:34 Sebastian K=FCgler wrote:
> On Saturday, August 30, 2014 14:31:16 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Yes, that doesn't say that Plasma will definitely hide passive SNIs, but
> > according to this specification, developers should actually _expect_
> > visualizations to hide passive SNIs. So,  according to this specificati=
on,
> > applications that rely on passive SNIs _not_ to be hidden are clearly
> > doing
> > it  wrong, and we could hit them over the head with the spec if they
> > complain.
> > =

> > [1] http://www.notmart.org/misc/statusnotifieritem/statusnotifieritem.h=
tml
> =

> Note that from my experience, it doesn't work like that. Application auth=
ors
> won't complain, giving an opportunity to "hit them over the head with the
> spec", they'll just abuse the implementation to get the behaviour as close
> to what they imagine to be good (whether it is good or not is a different
> story entirely). This is not "wrong or right" thing, it's a matter of
> encouraging the right behaviour (and offering something desirable in the
> first place).
> =

> That said, I'm not against trying it.

I think the first step towards that would be finishing a proper cross-deskt=
op =

specification so that it's clear what we want encourage people to do. See m=
y =

mail "State of the StatusNotifierIcon spec and implementation".
_______________________________________________
Plasma-devel mailing list
Plasma-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel