On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 09:50:10PM -0700, Kristian Høgsberg wrote: > 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?
Ah yes, that makes more sense. > > - 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. Yes, much clearer. I'll post a corrected patch. Bryce _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
