On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 12:02 +0200, Christian Neumair wrote:
> > I guess we could add this if we make absolutely sure the error dialogs
> > in the case of "no file" or "no app to launch the file with" are non
> > confusing in the context. I.E. they don't assume the user knows he tried
> > to execute a file instead of going to another folder (which was the
> > operation he requested).
>
> Well, we could only try to launch alternatives for files that are not
> folders. Why should fooapp be able to handle a random directory which
> Nautilus can't.
Thats totally not what I meant. If you type in the uri of a directory in
Nautilus we should of course never do anything other than open it in
Nautilus. What I was talking about is the errors in the case we
magically "assumed" the user meant to do something than browse to
another folder, i.e. in the case of a non-directory location.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
He's an ungodly soccer-playing assassin in a wheelchair. She's a
time-travelling gold-digging doctor with an incredible destiny. They fight
crime!
--
nautilus-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
