[kde] KMail&MozillaFirebird

[David Corbin]

On Tuesday 11 November 2003 15:59, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 21:21, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > On Tue November 11 2003 14:05, David Corbin wrote:
> > > > Where to set up %u ?
> > >
> > > Control Center/Kde Components/File Associations/text/html
> > >
> > > Although I find this an incredibly BAD place.  There ought to be
> > > somewhere that says, what program do use to process HTTP protocol,
> > > without regard to what the file type is.
> >
> > Yes, I fully agree.
>
> Ah. This again...... It leaves me uncertain:
> If we have something saying "use application A for HTTP"
> and something else (the mimetype associations) saying "use application B
> for text/html", which one do we launch?
> OK in such a case you'll say A, I want mozilla or whatever for HTTP.
>
> But what happens when it's an image, a text file, a PS file, or a KWord
> file over HTTP? If the above is done "as is", then the wrong program will
> be launched. At best it'll offer to "open with the right application or
> save" (it's still pretty useless to go through a browser just to fire up
> the right application, and basically this breaks the whole idea of network
> transparency); at worse the application will have no clue what to do with
> the given file it can't handle.
>
>
> I think browsers might be an exception - but most apps are not ready to be
> thrown "any mimetype" at.
> Which doesn't prevent implementing this, of course, but if done very
> generally (associate any app with any protocol), this gives just many more
> ways for users to shoot themselves in the foot by configuring things
> wrongly.
>
> Might be better to only support this for http[s], by adding a browser
> choice in componentchooser. The default choice being _nothing_, not
> Konqueror, so that by default a HTTP url pointing to a PS file opens
> directly in kghostview like it does now. Putting something there would
> break this behavior, but only over HTTP, and would allow people to (more
> easily) use a different browser than konqueror.

Your point is well made.   And, I think it's reasonable to say "let's have 
tool A" be responsible for handling HTTP, and then pass it off.  But to be 
really transparent, you need a "broader repository" of network information 
(proxy, cookies, userId/Passwords, etc.)  It's easy for me to suggest this 
(not being a KDE/Mozilla/Other Browser developer), but perhaps you can 
establish a common repository to be used by all such applications that need 
to use HTTP?

David
-- 
David Corbin <dcorbin at machturtle.com>