On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Ryan Lortie <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi, > > > Yes, that was my original idea with intents. I reconsidered after some > discussion though: It is much easier to use the existing Categories > key and improve upon it. Intents themselves can be dbus-only and the > same format as you mentioned, while improving Categories has the major > advantage that a lot of existing apps will be straight up compatible. > What do you think? Is there anything (non-dbus) in your Implements > idea that can't be solved by Categories? Keeping in mind that anything > that has a dbus interface might as well be an intent (or Implements, > or however it'd be called). > Categories are a set of defined categories used for grouping in menu systems. They're fairly loosely defined, and I don't think they make a good fit for intents. "AudioVideo", "Utilities" and "Education" don't tell me anything about what the app is, or what its interface will be. Something more defined and explicit about what the app is and what it will provide is a much better base for a new system. J. Leclanche > _______________________________________________ > xdg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > -- Jasper
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
