Re: improve PRIMARY buffer copy-paste behaviour, paste over
On 05.03.20 21:24, Johannes Thrän wrote: One of the reasons why many consider middle mouse paste useless […] Hi, I don’t think it’s useless at all. Actually, I use the PRIMARY buffer far more often than the CLIPBOARD because of the ease of use. (When I’µ on a Windows machine, and this method is not working, it regularly makes me freak out.) Unfortunately, not all programs support both buffers. In Xterm, you can only use the PRIMARY buffer, while in Netsurf, you can only use the CLIPBOARD. This makes copying and pasting between the two a mess. Cordially, Thomas ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: Consider adding license information to freedesktop.org wiki contents?
On 13.04.2018 13:11, Thomas Kluyver wrote: On Fri, Apr 13, 2018, at 11:48 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:> This isn't how copyright works, sorry. Thanks, I was aware of this. No, it doesn't strictly adhere to 'how copyright works', but realistically, people who contribute to a freely available wiki about open source software are not going to sue you for putting an open source license on it. People might change their view on free software. People might also die, and their rights will be inherited by their heirs. It's not even clear what they'd sue for: you can't lose revenue on wiki content that is already accessible at zero cost. It does not matter. Copyright violation is a criminal offense, just like trespassing or slander. It does not matter for it to be forbidden, if the victim suffers financial damage or not. As I said, this is something I have seen projects do. The Ubuntu wiki underwent relicensing in 2011, for instance, with the wording in an email: "In the absence of a substantial number of objections, this change will be made to the Ubuntu wiki after approximately one month." This is dangerous for re-users of the work, because they rely on the license, but the license is invalid. So, without knowing, the re-user will do a copyright violation and might be sued. Thomas ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
xdg-user-dirs – purpose?
Hello, I could not find within the documentation of xdg-user-dirs anything about the *purpose* of these directories. For some dirs, their purpose is obvious, for others not. DESKTOP *Some* file managers display this folder in the root window. Others, e.g. ROX, don’t. TEMPLATES This looks very useful. You can put file templates there. Each of them will generate a menu item in the file manager like “New HTML file…”. DOWNLOAD This folder is a dump where the web browser will put all sorts of downloaded files. After a short time there will be total chaos. :-( PUBLICSHARE This looks interesting. Has it ever been implemented? It reminds me of the public_html folder found in older distributions. DOCUMENTS The purpose is not obvious. Gimp uses it as a default to save pictures; Anki uses it to store its configuration files… MUSIC PICTURES VIDEOS No program seems to use these folders. Their purpose is not obvious to me. Greetings, Thomas ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: Proposal: database(s) of file types and URI schemes
Hi On 29.08.2017 06:33, Vladimir Kudrya wrote: Things you describe already exist: https://specifications.freedesktop.org/mime-apps-spec/latest/ and 'x-scheme-handler' notation is there for uri's. The problem is that Firefox and Thunderbird do not follow the spec properly. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=296443 this bug is still 'new'. So there is a common database, but Thunderbird ignores it. Okay, then for now the best way seems to be to configure it manually in Thunderbird: Edit→Preferences→Attachments→Incoming. Thank you for the links. The whole thing looks very complicated; I was expecting something simple like this: *.pdf: atril, gimp, xpdf *.xcf: gimp *.gif: eog, firefox, gimp In this case the first entry would be the default. …But in reality, there is one one database that defines the file extensions of mime types, one database that defines the mime types each program can handle and one database that defines the default program, if there are more than one. That looks really complicated. I still have some questions: 1. Is there an API, or will the individual programs have to manually parse these files? 2. I can imagine a problem when several file types share the same extension. *.doc can be a Microsoft Word file or a GST 1st WordPlus file or a plain text file. Is there a solution to this? 3. One solution would be that different system users interpret the extensions differntly. Is it possible to customize the MIME-info database on a per-user base? 4. Some programs are installed locally in a user’s home directory. Is it possible to create *.desktop files that are used only by one user? Where would they go? 5. Some system wide *.desktop files might be annoying to certain users. Is there a way a user may blacklist them? 6. Are there graphical tools to configure these things? Greetings, Thomas ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: Pixels Per Inch needs to be standardized
On 26.03.2017 09:00, Kai Uwe Broulik wrote: The point in having a higher definition screen is to fit a lot of stuff on it. The point in having a higher definition screen is to have crisper fonts and graphics. If you scale everything by 120/96, raster graphics will look ugly, and raster fonts, too. Greetings, Thomas ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
Re: Pixels Per Inch needs to be standardized
On 04.05.2016 17:44, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote: > I would like to propose having a standard way of advertising Pixels Per > Inch, so applications can know its value independently of the desktop > environment in use. The X server already advertises the DPI of the monitor. I found this in /var/log/Xorg.0.log: [ 6882.546] (==) intel(0): DPI set to (96, 96) Here, the resolution is set to 96 DPI although in reality, my screen has 120 DPI. And you know what: I want it to stay this way. Please don’t set it to the true value. Or at least provide some means to change it back to 96 DPI manually. The point in having a higher definition screen is to fit a lot of stuff on it. Thank you. Thomas ___ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
