Hi! On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:15 PM Jan Tojnar <jtoj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 15:53, Thomas Kluyver <tho...@kluyver.me.uk> > wrote: > > I can see what you're saying, but I don't think it's ridiculous to > > suggest that a desktop file could encode some indication of how well > > an application handles a particular file type. You could think of > > this as describing 'can open' vs 'can import'. > > I agree. In addition to that, there is also viewer vs. editor > distinction. Sometimes I want to view files but other times I want to > edit them. These are two different actions and could have different > applications associated to them, since the editors are optimized for > editing but not really fit for viewing, and the opposite is true for > viewers. Unfortunately, the desktop entries do not allow specifying > more than that the program can “open” a file, which lacks semantic > subtlety. > That's an interesting approach. But since it implies a choice from the start anyway, we would end up in contextual menu (thinking in term of default interaction). This is why I was thinking it is better to not do this and just see the files as their most intended intent (which would be anyway a viewing or an edition format). > Here are examples of files I often use in two different modes as a web > developer: > > - HTML file is viewed in Web Browser but edited in a text editor. > HTML is a very interesting special case, because it is one of the exceptions where it is both a display and an edit format. Then in this case, it's a hard choice. On one hand since you have more people just viewing HTML files, it feels perfectly logical to use an HTML viewer (a.k.a. web browser). On the other hand, normally when you have HTML files lying around in your local disks (not online!), this is because you are a developer willing to edit them (though you can save html from a browser and I could definitely see someone surprised to double-click it later and be welcome by HTML tags in an editor). - Photos can be viewed in e.g. Eye of GNOME but edited in GIMP. > If by photos, you mean for instance JPEG images, then this is a display format (a very bad one at that, lossy, with ugly display artifacts…). It is meant for viewing, not editing. Of course I am not saying you should not edit it, we all edit JPEG images, I do it too. But it's definitely not meant for being a good photo source for further edit. And most people (even the ones who edit a lot of JPEG, I think) would probably prefer a simple viewer as default action when double-clicking for instance. What is the exact interaction you have in mind which would be the consequence of making a viewer/editor differentiation? Jehan > > > _______________________________________________ > xdg mailing list > xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > -- ZeMarmot open animation film http://film.zemarmot.net Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/ZeMarmot/ Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
