VFolders isn't a standard yet

[Thomas Zander]

Hi George,

On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:11:35PM -0700, George wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 11:50:36PM +0200, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 11:32:39PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what provoked the sudden interest in the vfolder spec,
> > > but let me reiterate that no, it is not a standard. It is only a
> > > proposal that George made.
> > 
> > Hi, while looking at it I see that you made an XML file that kind of 
> > makes up the mapping between the .directory files and the pre-defined
> > menu names.
> > question;
> > - What happens when I make an application that does not fit in any catagories?
> > can I make up a new one? Or the same question, in a different context; what
> > happens if I use a catagory that does not exist in the target machines config
> > file (since its an old version)
> 
> 1) Suggest addition to the spec

Which will not be translated untill a new version of the spec will be implemented
right?

> 2) Use X-Product-Category format to add a new one.  There's already an
>    X-GNOME-Sawfish category which is very GNOME specific currently and
>    doesn't seem proper to be in the spec.

So you don't expect other desktops to show such icons? I can't imagine a new
and former unpublished tag to be used by your menu.  Unless you hacked in a 
string compare for exactly that catagory...
Plus, can you add a .directory file for that catagory?
Will the RPM alter my XML file to allow for a new catagory?

I'm not sure the base covers all, and I am getting the impression that you have not
thought through a manner of using this beyond one static distribution set.

> > - can the user override .directory or .desktop files?
> 
> Implementation depenent (not specified by the spec), but in GNOME2, yes.
> 
> > Your VFolder proposal seems to require all files in 1 directory. I wonder why?
> > I believe that only RedHat puts all applications in one directory and most 
> > sysadmins (I know) hate that.  The first reasons is that its a nightmare to
> > make up a new application name that does not clash with existing names. But
> > you should read;
> >     http://www.mosfet.org/fss.html
> 
> All the binary names are in one dir and you must make that up to be unique
> ... just make up the .desktop file names in the same manner.  It's also much
> easier for implementation.

That is what I said, yes. I also pointed out that there are problems with that
approuch. Problems many people fall over.
And your sole argument is that it is easier to implement?

There _is_ a way to do this in a backwards compatible manner and you choose to
ignore it since its more work. Hmm, good luck in getting the patches accepted.

-- 
Thomas Zander                                           zander at planescape.com
                                                 We are what we pretend to be
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20020709/c11206bd/attachment.sig>