Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser

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.
> But...
> 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

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]