On 8/10/06, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've already replied here:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gtk-devel-list/2006-August/msg00019.html
Yeah, I saw. It seems that the discussion should have been only here, on xdg. Sorry for creating two threads, but I was unaware of the new specification, so I figured that Gtk had taken matters into its own hands.
Here I'll expand a bit on the XDG side of things. On Thu, 2006-08-10 at 14:10 +0200, Nikolai Weibull wrote: > So it seems that [1] needs an update, if the new format that Gtk is > using is the one that XDG wants to use as well, which I suppose it is. I've already put the spec on the fd.o wiki: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Standards_2fdesktop_2dbookmark_2dspec the spec was discussed here on XDG-list last year: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg-list/2005-May/006862.html http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg-list/2005-May/006903.html I tried to get some more input a year later, when the reference implementation was almost done and pending integration in GTK+ 2.9: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg-list/2006-March/007915.html but got no replies (it was at the time of the great discussion about .desktop files exec lines, so it might have been missed).
I guess I missed my chance to "bitch" then...
> Also, why doesn't [1] follow the suggestions for file locations as > specified in [2].
Because, as I said on gtk-devel-list, it tried to map existing files; the usage of $HOME might be suboptimal, so I'm more than willing to review it and move the files inside XDG-mandated directories.
I can't provide any more input than that I think that adhering to other XDG specifications makes sense. I am, however, not authoritative in this matter. Anyway, thanks for the incredibly fast response :-). nikolai _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
