Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- From: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>
- To: Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- Date: 17 May 2002 11:23:42 -0400
On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 00:20, Seth Nickell wrote:
> 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.
it would still look at gconf keys for this. there's no UI for this ATM,
but that can be implemented later.
"don't get me wrong, i think that radiohead are amazing. i love their
music and i love their ethos, but that thom yorke guy always seems to
be complaining." -- moby
] [Thread Prev