Re: Application names

[Frederic Peters <fpeters gnome org>]

William Jon McCann wrote:

> My proposal for 2.28 is:

UI Freeze for 2.28 is set to Monday; sure we could grant an exception
and rush things, but I'd prefer to wait for the beginning of 2.29,
especially as we may want a new translatable key in the desktop files
and that would give enough time to translators.

Quoting Vincent Untz and Christian Rose:

 | >  And do you think the burden of adding a new translatable key to all
 | >  desktop files would be okay for translator teams?
 | Yes, if the changes/patches are done in time in the beginning of a new
 | release cycle, I think it will be acceptable by most translators.

 -- http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2009-August/msg00063.html

David Faure (of KDE fame) was away until August 4th, and didn't speak
since he's been back, but wrote before going on vacations:

 | But if the one who adds FullName to every desktop file also fixes up the
 | Name and GenericName keys of the file in order to stop the duplication
 | nonsense there and actually follow the spec then I guess I withdraw my
 | objection against FullName.

 -- http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2009-July/010816.html

Let's engage him back into the discussion, which has now been
clarified with regards to two important points:

 * it's not a matter of avoiding fixing GNOME desktop files
 * a new key is required for pleasant translations

And I hope we can then reach an agreement.  (yes I read your blog
post, and you may not believe an agreement is possible, I think
it is too early to give up).

However for compatibility reasons, I have been interested by Colin
Walters comments:

 | If we change the Name field now, concretely it will be a huge pain for
 | application writers because if their app is used on older GNOME
 | releases it will fail.
 |
 | Concretely what I suggest is this:
 |
 | o GNOME 2.28 panel is adapted to have multiple lines (default
 |   GenericName/Name?  Dunno...my take would be Name/GenericName in North
 |   America given that most Name is only meaningful in English, reverse
 |   outside)
 | o If writing a *new* .desktop file, and you don't care a lot about
 |   older OSes, set Name=Epiphany, GenericName=Web Browser
 | o If writing a new .desktop file, and you DO care, well...kind of a mess =/
 | o For an existing .desktop file which has Name=Epiphany Web Browser,
 |   add a new entry ShortName=Epiphany  (maybe we call it AppName?)

 -- http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2009-August/010845.html

The panel won't be adapted to have multiple lines (see 501087#c16) but
the other points stand, the proposal would end up with:

 * No change to the Name semantic as currently used by the GNOME desktop
 * A new ShortName/AppName/BrandName to be used by the GNOME Shell


Going back to your proposed guidelines:

 | When Name is the same as GenericName, the GenericName should be removed

Definitely agree.

 | The desktop entry Name value, application menu (for GNOME shell),
 | window titlebar (for GNOME 2.x), documentation, and about dialog
 | should all use the same name

Mmmm. See below.

 | The desktop entry Name value should be the brand name unless the
 | application is a simple (single purpose), core GNOME built-in and does
 | not have an established external brand identity (web site, online help,
 | etc)
 |
 | Brand names should be considered carefully but can’t be relied on to
 | indicate functionality in many languages

As noted by mpt during GCDS, we have a lot of sucky brandnames; as the
Name key will be exposed in many places that are not out of GNOME realm,
I believe it is nice to keep it somehow understandable (Agave Color
Picker instead of Agave).


Anyway my summary would be to have the discussion now, but the changes
in 2.29, with an enhancement to the spec if possible.


Cheers,

        Frederic