On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 10:21 +1100, Peter Harvey wrote: > Integration with e-d-s or similar would be perfect. Integrating with > e-d-s might cause problems (if people don't want to use Evolution, why > must people use e-d-s just to get bookmarks in Epiphany?). e-d-s isn't only for Evolution. It's badly-named, but it's intended to be for all of GNOME (including, say, IM applications). So the question then becomes, "Why must people use GNOME just to get bookmarks in Epiphany?" And the answer is, IMO, "Who cares? Everyone who uses Epiphany uses GNOME anyway." (I'm a big fan of dependency, the oft-misconstrued reason open-source works.) > If we were to write a CORBA server we would also need to document the > concept of 'what is a bookmark' and 'what is a topic'. One or both of > the following would have to take place: > * All users accepting 'topics' in place of folders. > * Introducing code to allow 'subtopics'. IMHO if topic A has > 'subtopic' B, then all bookmarks that belong to B must belong to > A. Nothing more restrictive than that. Well, the nice thing about this proposed idea is that Epiphany bookmarks can easily be replaced by an extension. So I don't think *all* users would have to accept 'topics'. If they didn't, they could use a different 'bookmarks' extension which emulates Firefox's; they wouldn't be able to take advantage of the integration GNOME offers. If we wanted the CORBA server to be more widely adopted... bah, can't that wait 'til after we have something functional? ;) Wish I weren't swamped with homework these days. I'd love to hack at something like this to learn what the heck CORBA does (or even what it stands for). -- Adam Hooper <adamh densi com>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part