Thank you for the response and explanation.

In my view, it would be better to say on the GitHub page that Louvre lacks support for “XWayland Rootless Mode” or “supports XWayland only in rootful mode” rather than lacking support for XWayland completely.

From reading of the GitHub page, my understanding was that XWayland would not work at all. This made the idea of using Louvre at this point sound totally impractical and positioned it as purely a toy in my mind. It also made me question technically why it would not work. I was already familiar with the idea of rootful vs rootless mode but it would never have occurred to me that this is what you meant.

When I read the new release notes I asked myself “how can XWayland not be a top priority?” but your explanation makes perfect sense. I can completely respect focussing on making Louvre as a fully capable Wayland compositor first before worrying about deeper X11 integration. Rootful mode may be less elegant but at least needing to use an X application is no longer a show-stopper.

I think I saw in a roadmap that XWayland support was prioritized as “hopefully never” which made it seem like a purposeful, ideological boycott. With your explanation here, that also makes a lot more sense and comes across as less off-putting and perhaps just more optimistic for how quickly pure Wayland will suffice. I don’t imagine you would block merging the contribution if somebody else did the X11 work.