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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: unknown .kdelnk field
From:       David Faure <faure () alpha ! tat ! physik ! uni-tuebingen ! de>
Date:       1999-05-04 18:03:31
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, May 04, 1999 at 06:56:40PM +0000, Andreas Pour wrote:
> pbrown@redhat.com wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 4 May 1999, David Faure wrote:
> >
> > > But it allows to enter several entries ("netscape", "Netscape",
> > > "Communicator" (?), whatever), because it's handled like a mimetype.
> > > I think this is wrong.
> > > Let's rename this field to simply "Application", allow a single entry in
> > > it, and we're done.
> > >
> > > Did I miss something ?
> >
> > I don't think so.  Makes sense to me.  However, Application is still a
> > misleading name.  Let's call it AppBinary?
> 
> Well, there may be more than one program that should have the icon, and why
> require a separate kdelnk file for each?  For example, I may have "netscape"
> and "netscape.sh" that I want to have the same icon.  I think currently you
> can do something like "netscape*" (hence the "Pattern" in the
> "BinaryPattern").
Hehe this is completely right !!!

Yes, it's a nice feature, which we should try keeping - but it's confusing
for the average user (ok he doesn't read the .desktop files, but he still has
to fill this field in the properties dialog).
Perhaps we need to work on the label of that field ;)

> I find this to be a very useful feature.  A GUI file manager should use icons
> for files where possible, and since we don't have a registry, these kdelnk
> files are the only place to tell the file manager know what icons to
> associate with files.
Right.

Sorry Preston, you have to go back one step...

-- 
David FAURE
david.faure@insa-lyon.fr, faure@kde.org
http://www.insa-lyon.fr/People/AEDI/dfaure/index.html 
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

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