You are relying on every author to care about this issue. I don't think that even a majority will.
I'm relying on the author of every (or most every) toolkit to care. Once the toolkits remote you have better remoting on a per toolkit basis than you do under by X. Your hypothetical application author has to have chosen an obscure modern toolkit which doesn't remote. If they choose a common one it is going support Wayland. If they choose an old one it is going to support X. You are talking well under 1% of all applications and those likely designed not to remote.
How bad is the latency going to be anyway? Today's cable modems are much faster than the LANs where I first learned to 'love X'.
I think you are confusing bandwidth and latency. Latencies on LANs are probably slightly higher than they were 25 years ago. Latencies on WANs aren't remotely close to LAN latencies 25 years ago, and are slowly creeping up not decreasing. Internationalization and additional layers of servers are mainly to blame. SIP has a hard 150ms barrier. This used to be no problem now with international especially to the 3rd world even 200ms variants aren't slow enough.
Moreover we don't have any solution to latency. While we might be able to half them through technology and better engineering to go beyond that we either need to shrink the planet or increase the speed of light.
A local Gnome? A local KDE? My main purpose for running remotely is to NOT have to install and maintain all that baggage in multiple locations.
I'm starting to think you are constructing your objections to be difficult. If you are an end user what do you care what sits on the hard drive? You install a mainstream distribution you install the standard toolkits, done. There is nothing to maintain beyond running Linux. You mentioned cut and past in earlier posts. The X-Server doesn't support any interaction beyond plain text, like clicking on applications starting the appropriate support libraries without those toolkits being installed. So you are doing this now. You are contradicting yourself on your use case. You can't have this being a feature you use in the last post and then in this one want to run without local toolkits. You don't have that now.
You are going eventually be able to construct a use case where X11 is better. I will freely acknowledge there exist possible use cases where X11 will be a better fit than Wayland. Say 1% or users. But by the same token I can easily construct a 100 use cases where X11 is terrible for every use case that exists on which Wayland introduces a slight problem. So those arguments don't do much. When you choose X11 you choose all those problems for other people. You need to argue that X11 is better than Wayland not that Wayland is imperfect. My opinion is that X11 mostly sucks at everything. It has been a disaster for Unix, forcing Unix to emulate hardware configurations that no one has used for two decades. In today's world X11 doesn't do anything well, and does most things far worse than any of the other mainstream competing graphical display systems.
And I'm including remoting in that. X11 doesn't even have a security layer or traffic shaping. SSH which is the dominant security layer breaks 3rd party traffic shaping. I'll start throwing out examples of non-fringe use cases where traffic shaping is needed like international or congestion and X11+Security will collapse.
So if you want to be remoting on a LAN not WAN, have a not quite dumb terminal but a Linux box that for some reason has enough of the toolkit installed to support the X-Server versions of applications but not the X-Client versions of those same applications, and want to run lots of applications from different sources then X11's remoting will work better. With a use case that important I'm shocked that the Wayland project hasn't been cancelled already. The reality is that what's going to happen is you will change one of those parameters the easiest being: install the full toolkit which is what you probably are actually doing now and everything will be better than it is now.
As for mobile apps with keyboard and mouse. Other than mobile development, why would you do that? And why would anyone want to remote that? Again that just seems like needless nitpicking use cases. You want to use a mobile application, download the virtual image and run it locally. The hardware is being emulated anyway, what difference does it make which CPU the emulated mobile runs on?
To do both of what? Display both kinds of applications remotely?
Have a display system that both shares and doesn't share buffers. And as far as remoting to properly the same remoting strategy. One is designed for strategies the other doesn't support and vise versa.
If a different method of getting the display data from one place to another works better then why would I be against changing it?
I don't know you tell me. Wayland is a different but better method of getting display data from one place to the other and yet you object to changing it. So why?
just give it a default implementation that may not be the most efficient but at least works. If the application or toolkit programmers don't care about remote access then it falls into that by default
It works that way for applications but not toolkits. Toolkits have to care. Do you know any toolkit authors that don't care?
My point being that you never know how people might want to use something. That's what made Linux great.. you had the choice to make it do things whether the original authors thought it was useful or not. Now it's just becoming another Windows or Mac OS jail.
Really? How do I move make sure that video and sound stay in sync remotely, to do something fringe like watch a video, even though the X11 authors didn't think that was useful? Tell me how Linux allowed people to do things it wasn't engineered to do.