Re: Icon naming spec: generic binary MIME type icon?
On Thursday 27 November 2008, Jakob Petsovits wrote: On Thursday 27 November 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote: How about adding let's say binary-x-generic: The icon used for generic binary file types. The MIME type for binary files is application/octet-stream, therefore an icon for binary files must be named application-octet-stream. Well, the MIME type for ALL binary files certainly isn't application/octet-stream, and because the Standard MIME Type Icons list already contained some entries that are not obviously directly derived from real/official MIME types, I thought (without knowing much at all about the spec) that continuing down that path would be ok. But I don't really care what it's called, only a bit about that _something_ to this effect gets added to the spec :) I would agree that this totally belongs into the icon naming spec (good luck getting it in :P ) but even if it's not in there, pretty much every serious theme should ship with such an icon. ...what? gnome-icon-theme does not have an application-octet-stream icon? Dude. Well, good luck getting it into the spec then. Mmh, I don't know about the history around the spec but good luck getting it in doesn't sound too encouraging. Contacting this list was the only instruction about feedback to the spec I found - does the good luck part imply that I should be contacting someone else about it or be prepared to do something else besides start this discussion? I don't have an account for editing the Wiki, could someone who does add an entry about this to http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/icon-naming-spec/to-be-named ? ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: Icon naming spec: generic binary MIME type icon?
On Monday, 1. December 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote: Mmh, I don't know about the history around the spec but good luck getting it in doesn't sound too encouraging. Contacting this list was the only instruction about feedback to the spec I found - does the good luck part imply that I should be contacting someone else about it or be prepared to do something else besides start this discussion? Essentially, after the initial creation phase the naming spec maintainer has both been pretty restrictive about potential additions and has also stated to have very little time to spend on the spec. The combination of these factors has led to a de-facto standstill in the naming spec, several people (including myself) have found it very hard to get even the most straightforward suggestions included - getting anything controversial or less obvious into the spec has proven to be near to impossible. Maybe the situation has changed over the last few months - I'm not aware of any new developments, but in case there are, please disregard this message. Wishes, Jakob ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: Icon naming spec: generic binary MIME type icon?
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 16:48 +0100, Jakob Petsovits wrote: On Monday, 1. December 2008, Ville Skyttä wrote: Mmh, I don't know about the history around the spec but good luck getting it in doesn't sound too encouraging. Contacting this list was the only instruction about feedback to the spec I found - does the good luck part imply that I should be contacting someone else about it or be prepared to do something else besides start this discussion? Essentially, after the initial creation phase the naming spec maintainer has both been pretty restrictive about potential additions and has also stated to have very little time to spend on the spec. The combination of these factors has led to a de-facto standstill in the naming spec, several people (including myself) have found it very hard to get even the most straightforward suggestions included - getting anything controversial or less obvious into the spec has proven to be near to impossible. Maybe the situation has changed over the last few months - I'm not aware of any new developments, but in case there are, please disregard this message. I propose to use the staging area as a way to work around this problem: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Specifications/icon-naming-spec/to-be-named ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
What is the definition of standards?
Freedesktop standards now say These are not really standards, and redirect to Specifications. IMHO, these ARE standards, just not official or authoritative like ISO or IEEE standards. It is common to refer to coding standards for source code conventions defined within an organization or programming project. The first definition of standards at dictionary.com is: something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model. Whatever the reason, I think it would be useful to give a better explanation of why Freedesktop is avoiding the term standards, instead of just freedesktop.org is not a standards body. Maybe it is also partly because these are still under development and subject to change, or maybe it is because some people were mistakenly considering or referring to Freedesktop specs in a way that implied they are formal standards? Joe Krahn ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: What is the definition of standards?
On Monday, 1. December 2008, Joe Krahn wrote: The first definition of standards at dictionary.com is: something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model. That's exactly the issue: Some fd.o specs are generally agreed upon, while others are more like proposals without cross-desktop implementation or even general consent. Plus fd.o is not an authority, it's merely a platform to discuss and host stuff that should (if all goes well) be shared across desktops. Although, didn't someone propose a distinction between specifications that have generally been agreed upon, and specifications that have not? Anyways, that was the reasoning afaict. Wishes, Jakob ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: What is the definition of standards?
On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 20:09 +0100, Jakob Petsovits wrote: Although, didn't someone propose a distinction between specifications that have generally been agreed upon, and specifications that have not? The Specifications wiki page should have that already, listing the specifications in such groupings. -- Rodney ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: What is the definition of standards?
On Monday 01 December 2008, Rodney Dawes wrote: On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 20:09 +0100, Jakob Petsovits wrote: Although, didn't someone propose a distinction between specifications that have generally been agreed upon, and specifications that have not? The Specifications wiki page should have that already, listing the specifications in such groupings. ... and still not doing so in an actually useful manner to somone on the outside, such as: * what qualified that spec for greater acceptance * what point in time that spec was so blessed * what versions of which software can be relied on to support such things * and no transparent process for this to occur i've been talking with the kind folk at the Linux Foundation with regards to possible ways to get things moving so that: * we can improve the above issues * we can integrate our information with their fledgling LDN initiative * we can build a realistic path towards LSB adoption of relevant and meanginful specs they are willing and able to: * host a repository for this metadata * help us define and manage the process * bring in expertise to help with the making-specs-standards-for-things-like- LSB task i didn't want to say anything and get people all excited until we at least had the repository to show, but since this topic keep coming up and i don't think it's useful to rehash it yet again, i figured i'd let the cat at least peak outside the bag ;) CC'ing Brian @ LF ... -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
.desktop file format ambiguity
I have a question about the treatment of whitespace in .desktop files
[1]. The file format description says:
Entries in the file are {key,value} pairs in the format:
Key=Value
Space before and after the equals sign should be ignored; the = sign
is the actual delimiter.
Only the characters A-Za-z0-9- may be used in key names.
I see two ways of interpreting this: either the = sign is the actual
delimiter (and whitespace is ignored purposes of splitting the line
into key and value, and thus ends up in the key or the value depending
on which side of the '=' it's on) or whitespace is ignored completely.
The latter would match the Only the characters A-Za-z0-9- may be used
in key names thing better.
In practice, I believe there are parsers that treat the whitespace as
part of the key and value... not sure about ones that don't.
In any case, this section could use some clarification.
-Boris
___
xdg mailing list
xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
D-Bus library is required
Where can I get the source for libdbus-1-devel? I'm trying to compile bluez but get the following error: configure: error: D-Bus library is required___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: D-Bus library is required
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Nicholas Albion [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Where can I get the source for libdbus-1-devel? I'm trying to compile bluez but get the following error: configure: error: D-Bus library is required http://dbus.freedesktop.org/releases/dbus/ -- Patryk Zawadzki ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: .desktop file format ambiguity
Le mardi 14 octobre 2008, à 11:44 -0400, Boris Zbarsky a écrit :
I have a question about the treatment of whitespace in .desktop files
[1]. The file format description says:
Entries in the file are {key,value} pairs in the format:
Key=Value
Space before and after the equals sign should be ignored; the = sign
is the actual delimiter.
Only the characters A-Za-z0-9- may be used in key names.
I see two ways of interpreting this: either the = sign is the actual
delimiter (and whitespace is ignored purposes of splitting the line
into key and value, and thus ends up in the key or the value depending
on which side of the '=' it's on) or whitespace is ignored completely.
The latter would match the Only the characters A-Za-z0-9- may be used
in key names thing better.
I'm not quite sure how it's ambiguous: the delimiter is = and spaces
before/after this sign should be ignored. So those lines are exactly the
same lines:
Key=Value
Key= Value
Key =Value
Key= Value
I'm not quite sure how you came to your first way of interpreting this;
it doesn't feel logical to me. But if we can clarify things, sure. Any
proposal to improve the wording? :-)
Vincent
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
xdg mailing list
xdg@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
