Not OK computer:/// [was Re: Should Desktop = Home?]

[Gabriel Bauman <gabe bravenet com>]

> Why do people keep creating new protocols?
> 
> It breaks things.  file:/// is a perfectly good protocol, computer:/// is
> compatible only with Nautilus (and disturbingly like the c:/ drive from
> Microsoft, I'm not just being anti-Microsoft it really is a bad idea).

Our problem is that from the user's perspective, Nautilus appears to
address 'shell folders' as if they were protocols. This is confusing.

For special locations, how about something like:

gnome:storage instead of computer:///
gnome:applications instead of applications:///
gnome:trash instead of trash:///

This way, we stop defining top-level protocols for gnome-specific
locations. A 'gnome' namespace would consolidate shell folders.

It's easy to see which 'protocols' should not be addressed as such. Do
their root locations contain nothing more than shortcuts to other
filesystems, themselves on other protocols? That's a shell folder, not a
protocol.

For instance, computer:/// contains links to smb:///, ssh:/// and
file:/// root filesystems. It's a shell folder. trash:/// contains links
to the local file:/// filesystem. It's a shell folder. Applications:///
contains links to apps on the file:/// filesystem. Same deal.

The 'gnome:' shell namespace would need to be well thought out, but a
common namespace would certainly alleviate the current weirdness.

Completely trivial note: I wish the "file:///" protocol was named
"local:///" instead. But that's just me. :)

-- 
Gabriel Bauman