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

[jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>]

On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 04:41, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> On 16May2002 09:20PM (-0700), Seth Nickell wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> I think gnome-vfs application and file type database already lets apps
> specify whether they can open URIs, and if so what URI schemes they
> understand, but this is assumed to be in combination with a MIME
> type. The missing part is claiming a URI scheme regardless of the type
> (or whether there even is one), and setting a default and preferred
> list for such a URI scheme.

using URI schemes that a type supports isn't all that reliable.

how can it tell what URIs a gnome-vfs app *really* support?  especially
when the app could be using a different version of gnome-vfs?

jacob
-- 
"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