On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:32 PM Bollinger, John C <john.bollin...@stjude.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 9:53 AM, Thomas Kluyver < > tho...@kluyver.me.uk> wrote: > > I can see what you're saying, but I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest > that a desktop file could encode some indication of how well an application > handles a particular file type. You could think of this as describing 'can > open' vs 'can import'. A few more examples from my laptop of technically > possible matches that you probably wouldn't want to be used by default: > > > - Libreoffice Writer & text/plain > - Libreoffice Draw & application/pdf > - Pinta (bitmap graphics editor) & image/svg > - File roller (archive manager) & application/x-chrome-extension > > I don't have a problem in principle with giving desktop files a way to > express a quality of support measure for the various MIME types they can > handle. That's about the capabilities of the software, not about system > policy, notwithstanding that tools that implement policy could rely on such > data in making decisions. But that's qualitatively different from Jehan's > proposal as I understand it. > You didn't understand. Thomas and Jan's answers are spot-on the kind of discussions I was looking for by posting here. They perfectly understood the proposition, whereas your answers are quite off-topic. Cf. my earlier email, where I tell your answer is confusing and that you didn't understand, but you just went on going even more off-topic assuming or talking about unrelated stuff. Jehan > In particular, I don't envision that if such a mechanism were implemented > in the spec and software, and used as intended by the GIMP, that it would > in fact satisfactorily resolve the issue that motivated the proposal. > > In my experience, things like this haven't really come up, so I'm inclined > to agree with you that it doesn't warrant changing the standard. But I > think it's better to understand what's specifically going wrong and work > out how else it can be improved, rather than insisting that this could > never be part of a desktop file. Labelling options with some kind of > priority is compromise we live with in various places. > > > I am all for understanding the problem and its context in order to find an > appropriate solution. It is based on my present understanding of the > context that I persist in asserting that desktop files should not express > policy. I don't see anything in the specific problem presented that > challenges that position as far as I am concerned, and I am having trouble > imagining what sort of thing would. In short: although firm, my position > is analytical, not dogmatic. > > > John > > > ------------------------------ > > Email Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/emaildisclaimer > Consultation Disclaimer: www.stjude.org/consultationdisclaimer > _______________________________________________ > xdg mailing list > xdg@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg > -- ZeMarmot open animation film http://film.zemarmot.net Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/ZeMarmot/ Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list xdg@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg