2017-08-23 14:40 GMT+02:00 Ben Finney <bign...@debian.org>:

> Jonas Smedegaard <jo...@jones.dk> 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
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
specific cli options.

Pkg-javascript-devel mailing list

Reply via email to