RE: New 2.4 modules - fontilus and themus

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Fri, 2003-04-11 at 16:13, Shahms King wrote:
> > 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-" ;-) )

This would be nice to have, and probably wouldn't need any code changing
in the already existing vfs methods (maybe they just install the .conf
files to a different directory). But it needs someone to write the code
in gnome-vfs or it won't happen.

Also if we're going to call it "x-gnome:///method/etc" we need to hide
this string from the user since, let's face it, it looks crap. Maybe by
doing the drop-down-list box thing in Nautilus.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp