rstrode at redhat.com
Tue Jul 13 02:54:53 EEST 2004
On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 17:14 -0400, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> Ray Strode <rstrode at redhat.com> writes:
> > I'm not entirely sure making \; an escape sequence like the others is
> > the best approach. For one, ';' has no special meaning for string
> > values (only lists), so escaping them for strings seems wasteful.
> > Also, I think it may slightly complicate implementations by making ';'
> > part of the escape sequence (the escaped character be part of the
> > escape sequence (probably not a big deal though)).
> We have four options here:
> 1) Escape ';' in all strings
> 2) Escape ';' in lists only
> 3) Not support escaping at all.
> 4) Support escaping of ';' only with the MimeType key
> I'm least happy with option 3, as mime-types can validly have a
> semicolon in them. However, the rest require a change to other parsers.
> Option 4 seems the least intrusive, though it's possible that want
> semicolon's in other lists.
I'd say 2) personally. 1) doesn't bring any benefits over 2), 3)
doesn't work, and 4) seems hackish to me.
> > > + The format of the cache mirrors that of the desktop file, and
> > > is
> > > + just a list of mime-types to desktop files.
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "the format of the cache mirrors that of
> > the desktop file". The cache file is just key=value pairs, yes? So it
> > lacks a group header, and has other differences from a desktop file,
> > yes? I think maybe instead of "mirrors" the phrase "somewhat similar"
> > or something along those lines would be a little clearer.
Sounds like a good idea to me. So, is the format going to be a fully
compatible desktop file, e.g.,
or would you rather it be only parallel to the desktop format, e.g.,
Either way, what would you use as a group name?
More information about the xdg