[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: *** MDI - my last statement ***
From:       Peter Penz <peter.penz () jk ! uni-linz ! ac ! at>
Date:       1999-09-23 12:06:47
[Download RAW message or body]

> Sorry to disagree, but IMO Quit terminates an application, and Close-Window
> closes the current window.
I know, that your KMail has this behaviour. You know that you didn't
respect the earlier standards (Exit in EVERY file-menu) with this
behaviour?

What I mean: you often mentioned the new standards-site isn't as good as
the old standards, but you don't respect the old standards yourself.

In KMail you've a Close and a Quit in the "mailreader-window".

Now I want to create a mail-message => new window opens. Here's only a
Close. Why is there no Quit? I can close the the mailreader-window with
no problem. Why didn't you add a Quit there to close all windows (Close
closes createmail-window, Quit the whole application). I would really
love to hear an answer on that.

I think that's not consistent at all and you didn't care on the earlier
standards.

It's good that you prevented that another Kmail can be started, while
one instance is running. Otherwise the confusion would be perfect (2
mailreader windows, but how many applications I can quit?). Do you think
everybody will take care on this?

Your Close does the same as our Quit. Your Quit is not needed (is it
really so much work to close 2 windows by hand if you already read 10
mails and created 1?).

Again: make a html-page and I'll add a link on the standards-page. So we
are able to discuss. It makes no sense to say "I don't like this" and to
have no solution. 

Cheers,
Peter

> I do not see this inconsistency. At least not in 90% of the applications.
> If you really insist on having no exit-application menu entry, then please
> call the entry Close-Window (Ctrl-W) and not Quit.
I personally would have no problem with the name Close instead of Quit.
We can use Close instead of the name Quit. I talk only about the
behaviour...


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]