After upgrading to Xfce 4.6 I was kind of required to switch from notification-daemon-xfce to xfce4-notifyd. The latter, however, does not seem to fully support the Pango text attribute markup. In fact, only <i> and <u> seem to be supported which restricts formatting of notifications to a bare minimum. Please consider to fully support Pango text attribute markup.
You builded with libsexy support?
(In reply to comment #1) > You builded with libsexy support? Yes, the package on Debian depends on libsexy and ldd confirms.
No, the spec does not specify anything beyond what's implemented (plus <img>, which I'm not sure I want to support). See http://galago-project.org/specs/notification/0.9/x161.html
(In reply to comment #3) > No, the spec does not specify anything beyond what's implemented (plus <img>, > which I'm not sure I want to support). See > http://galago-project.org/specs/notification/0.9/x161.html I see what you mean. I was talking about this spec: http://library.gnome.org/devel/pango/unstable/PangoMarkupFormat.html Being able to manipulate fonts is quite useful and should be one goal to be supported IMHO. The dependency on Pango could be made optional just as libsexy is right now.
I know what you were talking about. But the notifications spec only specifies a few types of markup. Applications shouldn't use anything but that, since they can't assume any conforming implementation will support it. If you want more markup available, get it into the spec.
(In reply to comment #5) > I know what you were talking about. But the notifications spec only specifies > a few types of markup. Applications shouldn't use anything but that, since > they can't assume any conforming implementation will support it. If you want > more markup available, get it into the spec. There’s not much I can say to prove my POV except "I’d like to have it". Could xfce4-notifyd at least support the markup for the summary too? ATM only the body supports markup, the summary just displays the tags as they were sent.
No, the spec only says body text may contain markup.
It's better to be restrictive and be strict with the spec, otherwise you could one day switch to another notification daemon and be annoyed that your scripts using notification display ugly text.
(In reply to comment #7) > No, the spec only says body text may contain markup. I changed the code for me anyways. (In reply to comment #8) > It's better to be restrictive and be strict with the spec, otherwise you could > one day switch to another notification daemon and be annoyed that your scripts > using notification display ugly text. I see where you’re going. I don’t actually need Pango markup that much but emphasizing the headline of notifications is a nice thing to have. Thus my modified request for having the summary also interpret markup.