Re: desktop entry names, generic?

[Julian Missig <julian jabber org>]

On 16 Jun 2004, at 18:14, Bryan Clark wrote:
*SNIP*
> This separation of the two names provides us with the ability to give
> functional names to applications when there is only one application
> installed (having only one image viewer means that "Joe Image Viewer"
> displays as "Image Viewer".  This also gives proper names to
> applications when there is more than one installed (having two image
> viewers would display what each applications name is, "Joe Image 
> Viewer"
> and "Crackbox Image Viewer").
>
> Problem being that in this discussion came the idea that the GNOME base
> applications should carry only the GNOME brand.  When I say the GNOME
> brand, what I mean is _no brand at all_.  So if "Joe Image Viewer" is
> part of the desktop release and the default GNOME Image Viewer it's 
> menu
> item name remains "Image Viewer", no matter how many other Image Viewer
> applications are installed in parallel.  Now when the user installs
> "Crackbox Image Viewer" the "Joe Image Viewer" retains the name "Image
> Viewer" as it's 'brand' or proper name is to be a part of the desktop.
>
> As a short side note to this of course is that if the user uninstalled
> "Joe Image Viewer", then the "Crackbox Image Viewer" would display it's
> generic name "Image Viewer" because it would be the only application of
> that generic name.

Couldn't this cause a *LOT* of confusion when users start saying "Image 
Viewer" is broken, it has bug x. Or someone reviews Gnome and talks 
about lack of support of feature x in "Image Viewer" --- because of all 
these cases you've given, we'll have *no idea* which "Image Viewer" the 
user is talking about. They may have multiple installed and thus be 
talking about the Gnome-blessed "Joe Image Viewer" or they may not have 
had "Joe Image Viewer" installed with their distribution for one reason 
or another an thus were using "Crackbox Image Viewer" all along--and 
they never even knew it. Now we wouldn't even be able to easily tell 
without having them start the application and tell us what the window 
title is (assuming window titles don't follow the same convention!).

I certainly understand the intent, but I think this could lead to lots 
of confusion in another direction...

Julian