Fred Kiefer wrote: > But why should we open up URLs with a web browser? > An URL just specifies how to get to a specific set of data, > the data itself should then be treated just like any other > file of that type.
Yes, agreed here. > If it is HTML then it should be passed on to a web browser, > but if it is anything else the proper application for this type should be started. But here is a point: why just a browser for HTML? What if I want to edit it? I think I saw a concept of an "instrument" or "tool" somewhere in Etoile documentation. I'm not sure what did Etoile people meant by it exactly, but in my own mind (I might have chosen another word for it then) an instrument is the following thing: 1. An instrument can show and modify a certain aspect of a document. 2. A document content determines the set of relevant instruments. 3. Within this set user can choose what instrument he wants to use. 4. And by the way, I want these instruments to be separate executables. An obvious example of this is a picture editing activity. It makes sence to have a "most natural" instrument, but I think there should be a choice. Now, the requirement to launch something for URL fits into the task of writing a desktop environment, why to push it into the GNUstep that is supposed to be a policy-neutral library? --Tima _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
