Re: Preferred Applications revisited, part two

[Rodney Dawes <dobey novell com>]

On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 15:47 +0100, Luca Cavalli wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 14:30 +0100, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> > On dim, 2005-11-27 at 01:05 +0100, Luca Cavalli wrote:
> > > If I can express my opinion an XML file is a good compromise between
> > > hardcoded C structs inside source file and automatic application
> > > discovering via desktop files, which is not doable with the current
> > > desktop file format. I like also Paolo's idea of having our own custom
> > > desktop files somewhere.
> > 
> > What is the issue with editing the current desktop file to set a field
> > the provided function (Browser, Mailer, ...)? The XML description is
> > nice, but still require to list all the alternatives instead of making
> > easy for the applications to be list themself.
> > 
> 
> The issue is that if we use our own xml file, we have total control over
> it. If we use dekstop files provided by applications, we don't have
> control over it. There is no problem for gnome applications, like
> epyphany, galeon or evolution, but we have to wait for other
> applications, like firefox, mozilla, konqueror, kmail and all other CLI
> apps to add a modified desktop file, before we will be able to list them
> in the capplet.

We won't have to wait long if we give them patches and push for them to
include the information in the desktop file. Not to say that I am
particularly enthused by either method, but I would rather avoid adding
a new file that we must also maintain. It would be best to keep the
current method for adding apps to the list, rather than some new method
that breaks all the current apps. The XML file may give us control over
what items are listed, but it removes control from the applications
themselves about how they should be run. If an application adds a new
command line argument, the author must then give us a patch so that
their application will work properly. Or if a new application comes
aboard, we will have to update the list. I think it's safe to keep the
arbitration of what shows up in the list, and how the apps are run, up
to the developers of said applications.

That said, I think you should work to get some method into the desktop
file specification about what URI types an application can handle. And,
having said that, I would prefer to see the default applications capplet
dwindle away, rather than expand to include all the possible conflicts
of what application a user might prefer for some random uri or
application.

-- dobey