I'm sorry I have no idea what you mean. This is not about the Linux desktop, this is about GNOME. If you don't want to support GNOME then there's no reason to discuss this, because it doesn't matter, you can keep going about your way and you don't have to care about them. Am I missing something here?
>The status quo on GNOME should not drive protocol standards that impact the entire Linux desktop ecosystem. Why should GNOME's fairly isolated status quo be the burden of every application or app toolkit developer?
They aren't, and they don't? I'm extremely confused as to what you're talking about here. This again is about what you would have to do to support GNOME. Not any other Linux desktop.
>The inverse is a burden on the compositor. There are far more apps and app developers, and even toolkits, than there will ever be Wayland compositors.
This doesn't matter because the issue here is how to make apps that aren't broken. Some things simply cannot be fixed in the compositor, they have to be fixed in the app, and this is one of them. I sympathize with your concern and I wish it wasn't the case, but sometimes app developers have to do some work that they don't want to do.
>Because you will get a vendored copy of libdecor. In a runtime like the Steam runtime, you might wind up attempting to load a version of libdecor linked against an incompatible libc if you try to use the system version. This is not a problem that would occur if a protocol were used instead.
That isn't how flatpak works at all. You don't use the system version, you only use the vendored version, and you do that specifically to avoid that linking problem you mentioned. Also libdecor does use the protocol so I have really no idea what you're talking about again here, sorry.
>libdecor also has the potential to create other problems.
Sure but the problems there would be exactly the same as they would be if you did it all in the server, so libdecor is not making it any worse. The only difference is that the code moved to the client.
>If GNOME cared about what experience was good for the user, they would have cared about the fact that the Wayland compositor they shipped into production runs many games with missing window borders because of their own initiatives and sway within the Wayland ecosystem.
Well I'm not sure if you saw this part in my previous part but those apps are broken according to the xdg-decoration spec. It has really nothing to do with GNOME at all. All Wayland apps need to provide fallback window borders if they want to work correctly in all situations, if they don't then that's a bug.
>The user experience in GNOME is genuinely worse due to this strange insistence on moving a problem from one location to another.
I don't see why that concerns you if you're not a GNOME user and you have no interest in supporting GNOME. GNOME can deal with their own problems, if that causes them to lose users then that's something only they have to care about, not you.
Continued...