further thoughts on file manager vs web browser

[Stephan Binner]

On Monday 27 September 2004 18:20, Aaron Seigo wrote:

> > You want to make this "split of file manager and web browser" optional,
> i suppose that depends on how it is implemented, and how flexible that
> implementation is ...

If you want another application (simple browser) then start a new one (like
Kafilah :-) or if it's not possible with modes then fork the Konqueror base.
But please don't damage Konqueror or its functionality!

> > I want to continue to use file and web browsing within one Konqueror
> > window, either in the same main view or besides each other in split views
> i don't think that will be limited.

Then either other opinions are floating around here or I misread them. :-)

> > I want to keep my one bookmark file with both file browsing and web urls.
> i haven't heard someone suggesting they be split up at this point. perhaps
> i missed that one?

I thought further what would be the result of such a split. What do you want
with local file system URLs especially directories in web browser bookmarks?

> when you have multiple tabs open, some with file management and some with
> web browsing going on, do we show both sets of kcms? 

That's actually a good idea. Tabs *are* advanced usage, especially when mixed,
so a more complex configuration dialog should be "allowed". There could be
sections with seperators first listing the kcms of current active part, then
the ones of all other active parts (in tabs/views) and finally global ones.

> what about the configs for other kparts besides khtml? 

The same. Why is there for the kfilereplace part another menu entry "Configure
KFileReplace..." instead of being integrated into "Configure Konqueror...",
same for Cervisia (except that those dialogs are technically no kcms atm)?

> yes, we already do this for shortcuts

And toolbars. Are dialogs really more problematic than changing menus?

> > Concerning the Home URL: Introduce "home url categories" (even if only
> is this really something that belongs to kparts, as it's rather konqi
> specific and kparts aren't?

For kparts is defined what mime-types they best display, why shouldn't there
any information what (types of) locations they display "best". ;-) 

Bye,
   Steve