From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [Emacs-diffs] emacs-24 r117559: Fix bug #18636 with documentation of multi-monitor displays. Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:03:57 +0300 Message-ID: <83vbnuib0y.fsf@gnu.org> References: Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1412798660 30992 80.91.229.3 (8 Oct 2014 20:04:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 20:04:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Glenn Morris Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 08 22:04:13 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XbxT2-0002Xg-GA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 22:04:12 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38377 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XbxT2-000256-4m for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:04:12 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55692) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XbxSj-00024l-F3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:03:59 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XbxSb-0007tR-CP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:03:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il ([80.179.55.172]:56283) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XbxSb-0007t6-49; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 16:03:45 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0ND500I005P8RW00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:03:43 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0ND500IDO6E6RP20@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Wed, 08 Oct 2014 23:03:43 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 X-Received-From: 80.179.55.172 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:175151 Archived-At: > From: Glenn Morris > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 15:52:31 -0400 > > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > +Position of the top-left corner and size of the work area in pixels as > > +@samp{(@var{x} @var{y} @var{width} @var{height})}. This is different > > +from @samp{geometry} in that the various system windows, such as the > > +task bar and side bar, are excluded from the work area. > > There were very few previous mentions of "task bar" in Emacs, but all > were written as "taskbar" rather than "task bar". AFAIK, "taskbar" is a non-word. In any case, these are terms from outside world that users are well familiar with, so we don't need to worry how much we use them in our manuals or how exactly we spell them. > I also think the details here are likely to be OS-specific. I think > "taskbar" is mainly a MS-Windows term? I don't think so (AFAIR, KDE at least uses that term as well), but feel free to add whatever other terms are used for that thing. > Eg on X with XFCE, the equivalent would be "panels", I guess, and > these have zero affect: geometry == workarea. There's nothing in what I wrote that contradicts the possibility that workarea geometry is identical to the whole screen. In fact, on any monitor but the primary one, this is always the case, at least on Windows. > "side bar" was never mentioned before now. It's popular terminology, not something specific to Emacs. > I would suggest maybe rewording this to be less definitive, and > basically just say that the precise details are likely to be > OS-specific. I found it very hard to be OS-agnostic here and still convey the ideas. The whole issue is obscure (the fact that not many systems have more than one monitor doesn't help), and its previous description was more confusing than enlightening. Feel free to improve, of course, but I rather think we should add terminology from other platforms, not remove what's already there, as doing the latter will make it obscure again.