> Not immediately related to the above, but it springs to my mind: > Have you thought about having different associations for different > actions? This is an extension to the discussion, and I don't know > where or even if it is supported by any desktop, but I am sincerely > missing it. What application to open a file with depends on the use > case. For many file types the difference between "Edit" and "View" is > relevant. One default is as good as another, entirely determined by > what the user has in mind *at this moment*. Of course, double > clicking a file can only mean one thing, but I miss the ability to > specify that .html files should be edited in emacs and viewed in > Firefox, for example. A few actions like this could be standardized, I > think it could enhance usability. Context menus with standardized > options could benefit, for example.
I would like to add two more things: First, my apologies for bad quoting in my previous email, which did not attribute the quote correctly. Next, I also found this discussion related to a recent thread at kde-core-devel: "KDE and the executable bit". http://lists.kde.org/?t=120138121500003&r=1&w=2 which discusses what determines execution vs "opening" of files with the executable bit set. Possibly "Execute" could be a valid action for mime types of interpreted file formats that do not support the #! syntax? Java jar files comes to mind - some of them are as valid to execute using the "java -jar" command, as opening with a zip utility. Depending on the use case... Claes -- C l a e s H o l m e r s o n _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
