2017-08-23 14:40 GMT+02:00 Ben Finney <[email protected]>: > Jonas Smedegaard <[email protected]> writes: > > > Quoting Jérémy Lal (2017-08-23 09:27:54) > > > xdg-open <filepath> ? > > > > Not sure, but I think sensible-browser is better: As I understand it > > XDG covers only graphical desktop environments, whereas sensible-* > > tools cover console environments as well. > > In the case of essentially graphical programs like the ones I'm thinking > of (e.g. “MuscleBook”), a pixel-based graphical browser would be > required. That means ‘xdg-open’ is better for this purpose. > > So I would make a package that “Depends: xdg-utils”, and install a > simple ‘/usr/bin/musclebook’ shell script: > > #! /bin/sh > > exec xdg-open /usr/share/musclebook/index.html > > Would that be fragile in some way? Is there something I am overlooking? >
Yes, two things, which i believe are not standardized - xmlhttprequest to file:// is disallowed in most, if not all, browsers by default, wether the initiator comes from file:// url or not - some browsers can run an application in "kiosk mode" - it runs the app independently of any other already opened web page, usually without omnibar and/or without menus. However i don't know if it's possible to benefit from xdg-open and these browser specific cli options. Jérémy
-- Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-javascript-devel
