On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 15:30 +0200, David Faure wrote: > On Thursday 23 June 2011, you wrote: > > If you just want to give the script an icon, you can embed > > the icon in the script, and write a thumbnailer for it. > > IMHO, having "run_me.sh" in the folder is enough. > > Having "run_me.sh", "run_me.desktop", and "run_me.png" in the folder > > won't increase usability. > > > > There are several ways to embed an icon in a script file. Just apend > > it to the end of file, or encode it with base64 or some others. Then > > having a thumbnailer decode such thing won't be too difficult. By > > adding a comment line containing specific strings in the script, > > during mime-type sniffing, it's easy to recognize this kind of file > > with mime-type magic rules. > > You know, not everyone is a developer. I am, but most people just want the > *simplest* way to create an "icon" shortcut which launches something. > > Think of the usability for the creator of the shortcut too, not only the > usability for the end user (who just clicks on something anyway). > > Writing a thumbnailer, or encoding an icon with base64, is nowhere as simple > as writing out with a text editor (or a standard properties dialog) > Exec=./foo.sh > Icon=some-standard-icon > > KISS :-) > > If some desktops want to also offer something at a higher-level that's fine, > but > not everything should need a GUI, in the Unix world. There's a strong use > case > for being able to do things from a command-line, in text mode, as well.
I'm fine with relative paths. As long as you can't reference files in parent directories, only ever children nodes, then it's fine by me. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
