Re: icon-title-format vs. frame-title-format (Bug#61496)

[Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>]

Tobias Bading <tbading@web.de> writes:

> Oh god, what have I done? XD
>
> But holding back isn’t one of my strong suites, so here goes nothin’…
>
> The X Window System may have introduced and/or (re)used certain terms, like
> “normal” and “iconic” for different states of top-level windows, but that
> was ages ago. That the term “iconic” was chosen is very unfortunate IMHO.
> It contains the word “icon” and thus suggests/implies that a currently
> invisible window is represented by some icon somewhere. Window managers like
> mwm may have chosen to actually represent invisible windows this way back
> then.

And yet, on my GNOME 3 desktop, iconified windows _are_ still
represented by an icon placed within the dash area in the overview
panel.  ``Iconification'' is simply the more accurate term: there is
nothing minimal about the huge previews displayed in the overview area,
but the previews do correspond to icons.

Not that I like GNOME's new design.  I think it's horrible.

Anyway, I don't object to explaining what we call ``minimized'', as long
as it is confined to some short introductory text in the manual.  But we
should never use the term ``minimized'' ourselves.

> Today, a lot of free software desktop environments, window systems,
> window managers etc are available. Some may present invisible windows
> as icons, others as buttons in window lists, a thumbnail in a dock, or

A thumbnail, or a button containing an icon, is not/does not contain an
icon?