Why X protocol/server forbid zero width/height?

[Russell Shaw]

Jim Gettys wrote:
> Remember, however, that *downward* compatibility is essential if you
> want rapid deployment of applications; so such a fix won't help out
> applications anytime soon (they'll still need the checks and work
> arounds for old servers).  Servers get updated much less frequently that
> applications, and X is a network protocol (people really do run X in
> production environments, and don't change out their X server for years,
> if ever).
> 
> So minor headaches (like this one) are probably *not* worth fixing
> (unless you can make a better case, anyway); they just make life harder
> to test (in this case, you just added another permutation to test for
> your applications).
> 
> Sometimes, however, there are things that really can fix problems that
> can't be easily avoided in applications/toolkits.  These are getting
> added to the XFixes extension.  Examples are regions as first class
> resources, fixes for reliable embedding, and the like.  So do complain
> about problems of that class.
> 
> There is a good paper:
> 
> http://www.std.org/~msm/common/protocol.pdf
> 
> Why X Is Not Our Ideal Window System
> Hania Gajewska
> Mark S. Manasse
> DEC Systems Research Center
> 
> This paper goes over many mistakes we made.  And note, with XFixes, we
> are in fact fixing problems where we can.
> 				- Jim

It would be useful to be able to reparent windows without having to
destroy them.

It would also be useful if there was a thing like XUnlink window
to remove a window and its children from the tree without destroying
them.