[PROPOSAL] Desktop Bookmarks
dave at cridland.net
Wed May 11 11:50:25 EEST 2005
On Wed May 11 08:30:19 2005, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-05-10 at 20:31 +0200, David Faure wrote:
> > "Replace the Recent Files Storage Specification, providing a
> single specification for both bookmarks and recent files"
> > sounds good, but both files should still be separated. There's a
> difference between
> > a set of bookmarks that the user has set himself, and the "recent
> files" list that is
> > automatically updated.
> The desktop bookmarks list itself could be automatically updated:
> suppose you set a bookmark to a location on a volume, and you do not
> access it for more than six months; the system could selectively
> older entries (where "older" means "older than a limit conveniently
> choosen by fd.o or set by the user"). This could avoid unnecessary
If any computer starts removing data I have explicitly put there,
you'd better be supporting RFC748.
I totally agree with David Faure here - old bookmarks I do refer back
to, and expect to be fully persistent. History I expect to expire in
some way, and I tend to treat it as volatile. I'd also like Bookmark
data to roam with me, but I'm not fussed if History doesn't.
It's the same data type, which is, I think, why you're aiming this
way - a History entry is semantically identical to a Bookmark. But
the semantics of the collections - History vs Bookmarks - are very
different. I don't think they should be muddled. As a point of note,
no web browser has attempted to mix the two, although of course you
can "move" a History entry to Bookmarks typically quite easily.
More information about the xdg