AW: AW: AW: xemacs trouble maximizing window

[Krueger, Wulf]

[XEmacs doesn't maximise correctly for me. Others don't, so the WMs 
can't be broken]
> What is the basis for your conclusion? 

Experience and common sense. See below.

> Saying "it works with other applications" doesn't meant that 
> there isn't a bug, only that the bug doesn't affect other 
> applications.

Generally, I agree. Let's assume for a moment that metacity, kwin (yes, 
it's KDE's WM) and others all share one and the same bug that gets 
triggered by XEmacs. Other apps aren't bothered by that bug. 

Apart from the fact that I don't believe all other apps implemented
some workaround, the question IMHO is: If this hypothetical bug is so 
wide-spread but of almost no impact [on Linux] - is it in XEmacs' 
and its users' best interest to be standards-compliant but affected?

> How many of those other applications specify a resize increment?

I have no idea and I don't really care to speak frankly. Maybe that's
simply a bad idea?

> It isn't about /enforcing/ anything. However there is a limit to how
> much fault-tolerance you can provide.

Absolutely true. Still, XEmacs3 has troubles being used with at least 
two major WMs and a minor one. I think that warrants investigation and
fixing this issue.

> 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.

That's great. I'd just prefer if they did not run in the opposite 
direction compared to the rest of the herd. :-)

> 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).

While I do *not* speak in favour of populism in general, I prefer my 
software fully functional. And I think most users do. 

I do understand your point, Glynn, but I'm more pragmatic. If something
is broken with "really, really popular" software, fix it. If that means
sacrificing some compatibility with correct software, investigate the 
impact and *then* decide about what to do. 

> Sure. But the issue is whether you should be taking this up with the
> application developers or with the WM developers.

How do you think will WM devs react if I tell them XEmacs features 
this strange behaviour but no other software? :-)

Unless they're using XEmacs themselves they'll more or less politely 
ignore me. Actually, last time I addressed this issue with the KDE guys
they did exactly that and I can't really blame them.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, 

Wulf C. Krüger