On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:47:07AM +0000, Bryce W. Harrington wrote: > Signed-off-by: Bryce Harrington <[email protected]> > --- > protocol/wayland.xml | 7 ++++--- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/protocol/wayland.xml b/protocol/wayland.xml > index 8619e91..89edd83 100644 > --- a/protocol/wayland.xml > +++ b/protocol/wayland.xml > @@ -1015,11 +1015,12 @@ > > Destroying the wl_buffer after wl_buffer.release does not change > the surface contents. However, if the client destroys the > - wl_buffer before receiving wl_buffer.release, the surface > + wl_buffer before the receiving wl_buffer.release event, the surface > contents become undefined immediately.
Did you mean to put the 'the' after 'receiving'? We're going for [...] However, if the client destroys the wl_buffer before receiving the wl_buffer.release event, [..] right? > - Only if wl_surface.attach is sent with a NULL wl_buffer, the > - following wl_surface.commit will remove the surface content. > + If (and only if) wl_surface.attach is sent with a NULL > + wl_buffer, the following wl_surface.commit will remove the > + surface content. > </description> I think it would be better to just drop the 'Only', we really only want to document this implication: If wl_surface.attach is sent with a NULL wl_buffer, the following wl_surface.commit will remove the surface content. and not the other direction. Kristian _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
