RE: New 2.4 modules - fontilus and themus

[Shahms King <shahms shahms com>]

> Is themes a good URI prefix (protocol name thingy)? Can we imagine the term
> theme being used for anything else?

This has been something that has been bothering me for a while. 
Admittedly, it is a little bit pedantic, but I've seen other people
mention it and I thought I'd give my 2 cents.

What's with the proliferation of URI schemes in GNOME?  While gnome-vfs
makes it relatively easy to add a new scheme, I don't think this is
necessarily the best way to go.  Schemes are "blessed" by the IETF and
generally represent actual protocols, not "virtual folders."  While I,
as a power use, like being able to type "fonts:///" or "themes:///" or
even "all-applications:///" and get at the respective folders, it would
be much cleaner (IMHO) if we had a single 
"x-gnome://<virtual folder>/<path to file>" scheme instead (I suppose we
could overload "file://<vscheme>/" this way instead, but that kind of
implies the file:// protocol, which might not always be the case).  It
would even be remotely standards compliant (note the leading "x-" ;-) )

> Also, if we ever decide to hide the URI in Nautilus windows will this still
> make sense?

Related to the rant above, one of the few things Windows does which is
reasonable (again, IMHO) is have user-visible strings like "My Computer"
or "Control Panel" in the location bar (and title-bar) for the various
special folders.  Obviously such support shouldn't be in gnome-vfs, but
something similar would be nice for Nautilus.

> Murray Cumming
> murrayc usa net
> www.murrayc.com
-- 
Shahms King <shahms shahms com>