On 2/21/19 12:10 PM, Simon Ser wrote:
> Sorry, these comments feel a bit off-topic here. I'd appreciate if we
> could stay focused. Thanks!
And, what topic would that be, then, given that the subject of the thread is
"wayland-protocols scope and GOVERNANCE"?
Or, perhaps you are a non-native Engl
On 2/21/19 8:47 AM, Daniel Stone wrote:
> But why should Weston cripple itself in order to create this negative
> space for wlroots or Mutter or Smithay or whatever? I'm happy to clean
> up the README to reflect reality. One of the side effects of creating
> this protocol documentation site really
On 12/19/2016 03:04 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> We very deliberately avoid defining any "standard" Wayland interfaces
> for configuring a compositor, because every compositor is different.
> With X11, you had the one single X server implementation and no other.
> On Wayland, every compositor is an
> as Pekka already pointed out there
> are a few constraints that originate in the design decisions of wayland and
> are quite different to [those] of X11. We can't change these constraints but
> have to find a solution that works well with them: ...
I'm more of a bystander to this discussion.
