<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">
p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>On Tue, Oct 22, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Andrzej wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><div class="qt-moz-cite-prefix">On 22/10/2019 12:45, Sean Davis wrote:<br></div><blockquote cite="mid:67d7bd22-1ab8-44ca-bf58-e3905551c235@www.fastmail.com" type="cite"><div>I guess it's also critically important to make this
distinction. We are going for scenario #2.<br></div><h3 style="margin-top:1em;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:1em;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;font-weight:bold;font-style:normal;color:rgb(51, 51, 51);font-size:12.8px;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;letter-spacing:normal;orphans:2;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;widows:2;word-spacing:0px;-webkit-text-stroke-width:0px;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;" id="qt-scenario_2full_csd_not_full_headerbar_selected_for_416" class="qt-sectionedit4">Scenario
2: Full CSD, not full HeaderBar (selected for 4.16)<br></h3></blockquote><p>If you really want work on that, fine, but as a minimum please
make it a run-time option and make sure the non-CSD variant always
works. Otherwise, if you really must follow through, rename/fork
the applications and libraries so that original can be maintained
and developed further under their current names and in their
current repositories. We don't want to end up with another
Gnome/Mate mess.<br></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Another feature of the toolkit CSD decorations implementation is that GTK_CSD=0 just works. The last thing we want is any divide where Xfce is forked and maintained separately.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><p>But, why? Why break established X11 patterns for the sake of some
visual candy? Window managers are a central part of X11 user
experience. Only recently my organization has deployed Xfce on
user machines because the hits a good balance between being
standards compliant and feature rich. From the usability point of
view CSD have a negative value.<br></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's not about the visual eye candy. There are actual benefits we gain from CSD (as I mentioned before), and the window manager is still at work when using the CSD windows. Right-click on the titlebar/header and Xfwm responds with the same window management controls. Dragging, resizing, corner-tiling... this is Xfwm still doing the heavy lifting... In Xfce, we get the benefits of both when an application is using the CSD decorations.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><p>I feel bad complaining about it because I haven't worked on Xfce
for years now, but if I don't do it, our user will. I disagree
with your estimate of the scale of the issue - being usability
focused and respectful of user preferences became our key feature
since Gnome3.<br></p></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't disagree with you, but I also don't think there's any changes in this regard. We're still usability focused, highly configurable, and user-first. I think everybody still has a sour taste from the GNOME 3 CSD implementation, where features were seemingly dropped to make headerbars work. We're doing the opposite: taking advantage of the new features and making them work for Xfce.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt"><p>Best regards,<br></p><p>Andrzej<br></p><p><br></p><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Xfce mailing list<br></div><div>Xfce@xfce.org<br></div><div>https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce<br></div><div>http://www.xfce.org<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div></body></html>