Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- From: Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- Date: 16 May 2002 21:20:41 -0700
On Thu, 2002-05-16 at 11:24, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> jacob berkman <jacob ximian com> writes:
> > in fixing the default apps crapplet to work, i thought that the right
> > thing to do for the default web browser would be to set the default
> > text/html application to what the user chose, and have gnome_url_show()
> > first check the protocol handlers in gconf like it does, then instaed of
> > using the default stuff in gconf, use the default app for text/html in
> > gnome-vfs.
> > this way, opening html files in nautilus would do the thing the user
> > expects, and would be easy to configure.
> > anyone forsee any problems with this?
> It seems much cleaner to me to use the MIME system for all the default
> applications stuff. I always thought we didn't use it just because we
> wanted to sometimes pick the app based on protocol instead of the kind
> of data?
> I really haven't looked at any of this at all, but that's what I
> thought the issue was.
That was the issue. Its sort of screwy. For stuff like http: it would
work fine to detect the type and choose an app based on that.
Its not clear what should be done for mailto:, telnet: and the like,
where there's not a "file type" per se.
] [Thread Prev