On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Brian J. Tarricone<[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/06/2009 10:52 PM, PCMan wrote: > [...] >> Here is the full specification. >> http://wiki.lxde.org/en/Desktop_Preferred_Applications_Specification > > Aside from other objections raised, I see a problem with your terminal > handling. You suggest specifying something like this in the .desktop file: > > Exec=gnome-terminal -e %f > > ... except that won't really work. If the user tries to launch the > terminal from, say, the applications menu, it'll fail to load because > the menu implementation will try to execute "gnome-terminal -e". > gnome-terminal may behave ok if you pass -e without any parameters, and > it may not... regardless, poor command-line option parsing isn't a > 'feature' you can rely on. Good point! So maybe we should either force all xdg compliant terminal emulators to support -e option, or we can add a seperate key in the desktop file for this purpose. > Also the terminal emulator option lacks a method to do something I > imagine might be common -- opening the terminal emulator with $PWD set > to a directory specified on the commandline (of course, you could do > fork(); chdir(); exec(); but that's kinda lame). fork + chdir is a simple and effective solution which doesn't need any modification to existing specs. Personally I'm ok with it, and we use this approach in our LXDE, too. > Not sure what the best way would be to handle this... maybe through some > custom X- prefixed keys in the desktop file, like > X-Terminal-Run-Command-Exec= and X-Terminal-Open-Directory-Exec=. (Of > course, this would be a perfect job for the 'custom actions' portion of > the desktop entry spec; a pity that was removed and there's no good > replacement; Thunar implements it, and IMO it's pretty useful.) How can you express the $PWD in X-Terminal-Open-Directory-Exec? This doesn't solve the problem and further complicate the spec. So I think for dirs, fork + chdir is the standard way, and for executing programs in terminal, an additional X- prefixed key is a reasonable choice. > Otherwise I'm ok with most of this.
> One other thing -- why is there a need for a special > application/x-web-browser fake mime type? Why not just use > application/x-xdg-protocol-http and application/x-xdg-protocol-https? > Is there enough value in knowing that an app is a web browser (rather > than just "an app that handles http/https URLs") that would justify a > special case? You are possibly correct as I haven't found any real special cases. On Windows the default web browser is the protocol handler of http, too. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
