Summary of NWI -- the page

[Matthew Woehlke]

Maciej Pilichowski wrote:
> On Thursday 04 June 2009 17:17:30 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>>>>> The close-window action is generally /not/ accessible via the
>>>>>> application's interfaces. (Of course, the application is
>>>>>> always permitted to close its window(s).)
>> Well, it is up to apps. I don't care so much, I just think it's
>> redundant. And as I said, there is nothing stopping apps from
>> having it now, but I can't think of any that do. 
> 
> Ok, but since it is legal, I opt for removing such remarks from NWI 
> summary.

Remind me, is this on the wiki somewhere? Or just here?

>> IOW I'm okay with 'close document must not close the window unless
>> a: there is a sibling instance of the same kind, or b: the window
>> is a "satellite" of a different 'main' class belonging to a process
>> that will not be exiting (e.g. most IM clients, many mail clients'
>> compose windows)'.
> 
> Are you just ok, or you would like to have such options. Because I am 
> just ok :-) If there is no real need for those why add it?

I believe 'close document' (or at least ctrl-D) should be permitted for 
"satellite" windows (e.g. kmail, kopete, similar.) and should close the 
window.

You seem to disagree :-).

Closing when there are siblings is a little different, but I suspect 
there would be bug reports when using TAI-used-to-be-TDI applications 
otherwise.

>>>> If it is a violation of KDE's HIG, we should add the note "this
>>>> is a violation of KDE HIG, but some apps do it anyway".
>>> And if HIG changes, we should change the summary as well. There
>>> should be no such dependency in NWI.
>> ...or reword it 'may be prohibited' or some such, with 'see HIG'.
> 
> If you insist on keeping the list, I opt for putting in bold "see HIG 
> to check what scenarios are valid" (or something like this) to 
> clearly state we put there some random stuff not caring which one is 
> legal and which one is not. 

That would be fine.

>>> On the other hand you removed two options for controlling
>>> last-app-close. Since you agreed to those options can I put it
>>> back?
>> Which? The ones (I thought we agreed?) would be app-specific? 
> 
> We agreed that closing document is app specific, not last-app-close 
> (AFAIR).
> 
> I am talking about those -- _last_ window inside container, user 
> actions:
> [ ] ignore closing app completely 
>    [ ] close the document instead

Remind me what action was invoked that this comes into play? 
close-window or close-document?

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
 > pinotree uses the large trout on tsdgeos and PutHuhn :)
 > PutHuhn runs
 > tsdgeos lights a fire and eats the trout
(with apologies to Pino Toscano, PutHuhn and Albert Astals Cid, who came 
up with this entirely on their own)