Re: proposal for MIME behavior in GNOME

[Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>]

Joe Shaw <joe ximian com> writes:

> > It is similar to the simple 'Run Command' dialog, and will share the 
> > same code. There are two differences, though.
> > [ ... ]
> > Second, there will be a check-box to let you add the selected 
> > application to the list of applications that can open the file's 
> > MIME-type.
> 
> Does this mean that the file's .desktop file will be edited, or will
> this info be stored somewhere separately?  Will the checkbox be checked
> on by default the next time this window with the same mime type is
> opened, and will the user be able to turn it off?  For mime types
> specified in the .desktop file, can those be turned off or will they be
> grayed out?

I specifically left the implementations a little undefined in that
paper.  Instead, I focused on getting the interface defined.  For the
2.6 timeframe, I'm going to have to use the current .keys mechanism that
gnome-vfs uses.  It creates a user.keys file in the user's home
directory and merges that in.

There is really no mechanism currently for removing applications that
have been added.  It's possible we'll need to add one.  We may want to
put that in the "Open with..." dialog, as OS/X does.

> > Additionally, in the case where you are opening a file that doesn't 
> > have any applications associated with it, the list of all available 
> > applications will be made visible for the user.
> 
> Isn't this what is always happening?  If not, what's the shorter list in
> the case where there are applications associated?

No.  All files will only be listed if the mime-type has no-known
applications associated with it.

> Other than that, it looks pretty good.  The text "Open With Other
> Application..." when there isn't an application that can handle it feels
> a little awkward... it gives me the impression that there should be
> something there but isn't, but I understand that it's there for
> consistency's sake.

It could be changed to "Open With..." which is more concise.  I'm not
too concerned on the exact wording.

Thanks,
-Jonathan