Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>
- To: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs noisehavoc org>, Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, desktop-devel-list <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:06:24 -0700
On 17May2002 11:25AM (-0400), jacob berkman wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-05-17 at 04:41, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> > 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.
I think you mean "that an application supports"?
> 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?
Right now you have to list all the URI schemes an app supports
explicitly. The obvious hole is that for apps that use gnome-vfs this
set is open-ended and only known at runtime. It would be better to be
able to say "all URI schemes handled by gnome-vfs" in some way, and
also claim additional URI schemes on top of that. Of course, these
could be different sets for gnome-vfs 1.x and 2.x, so maybe two
special tags are needed. Hopefully at some point gnome-vfs module
compatibility will be maintained in perpetuity, so a limited number of
such special tags will be needed.
] [Thread Prev