Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- From: Mike Martin <redtuxxx yahoo co uk>
- To: gnome <desktop-devel-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: gconf vs. gnome-vfs for default web browser
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 11:04:46 +0100 (BST)
--- Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com> wrote: >
> jacob berkman <jacob ximian com> writes:
> > in fixing the default apps crapplet to work, i thought that the
> > thing to do for the default web browser would be to set the
> > text/html application to what the user chose, and have
> > 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
> > 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
> applications stuff. I always thought we didn't use it just because
> wanted to sometimes pick the app based on protocol instead of the
> of data?
> I really haven't looked at any of this at all, but that's what I
> thought the issue was.
Just a couple of comments on this issue, especially in respect of
I feel it would be of more use to retain the gnome 1 functionality of
protocol handlers because
1. mailto - how do these relate to mime-types
2 non-html http files
Just my thoughts
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
] [Thread Prev