New handling for URI scheme handlers
hadess at hadess.net
Tue Oct 5 16:27:52 PDT 2010
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 00:36 +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 October 2010, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > if consistency reigns and this addition does not achieve consensus
> > approval, we do have .protocol files in KDE already and it would be nice
> > (and sensible) to use something that already exists instead of reinventing
> > new wheels of incompatibility.
> In fact our current system sucks because the definition of the protocol file
> also includes the associated application, so you can't possibly have two
> applications registering for the same protocol, they would try to install the
> same file (or if they use a different filename, the winner is undefined).
> On the other hand the mimetype system already solves all these issues, by
> putting the information of "app X can handle Y" in X.desktop, not in a file
> describing Y.
Right. That one of the problems we had with our system before as well,
where one application would say "I handle scheme foo", and it would
create problems when another application tried to say "I handle scheme
foo as well".
> However I understand that your reaction was mostly to the rejected "default
> terminal" proposal; IMHO we could implement that on top of the x-scheme-
> handler mechanism, by simply agreeing on a (fake) scheme name for opening a
> terminal ;)
If you wanted to twist the changes I'm proposing that way, yes, you
could do that, but I'd probably try to avoid implementing it in GNOME ;)
More information about the xdg