I'm pretty sure I'm disagreeing? He's claiming having a "super-topmost" feature would somehow defy logic, whereas I'm saying it's perfectly fine—you can (and later Microsoft literally did) implement a "super-topmost" flag perfectly fine, and it would literally mean "this is on top of all topmost windows", just as the customer had requested. Of course logically it couldn't always be on top of other super-topmost windows, but that's not what the customer asked for either.
but that's what those blogposts were about! The customer wanted their window to be on top of every other window - even if the other window is asking to be on top of every other window!
If you have a secret "super-duper-topmost" window flag, then you're not really satisfying the customer's request. but if you do indeed have this super-duper-topmost window flag, what happens if two windows tried to ask for the same? How do you decide which goes ultimately on top?
He’s arguing that there is no point to having another level of topmost if all applications currently using topmost are all going to use that new super topmost level anyway. If they’re currently using topmost, you can practically guarantee that will be the case.
If what you say is true, the only way they prevented that is by not making the new super topmost accessible to users, which isn’t really fulfilling the users request.
