Desktop File spec vs. KDE vs. gnome-panel

[Heinrich Wendel]

On Tuesday 29 July 2003 23:34, George wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 09:35:29PM +0200, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > On Monday 28 July 2003 19:09, George wrote:
> > > Reference: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85150
> > >
> > > Basically what happens is that the spec says that
> > > Exec=kasteroids %i %m -caption "%c"
> >
> > "%i" gets replaced with "--icon" followed by the Icon= entry from the
> > .desktop file.
> >
> > "%m" gets replaced with "--miniicon" followed by the Icon= entry from the
> > .desktop file.
> >
> > "%c" gets replaced with the Name= entry from the .desktop file. It stands
> > for "caption", not for "comment".
> >
> > "%k" gets replaced with the path of the .desktop file itself.
> >
> > I can't say that this is practice is reflected very well in the spec :-(
> > %m does get mentioned in the spec btw, at least in the "May 05, 1999"
> > version that I have here.
>
> Ahhh 0.9.4 version says %m is deprecated, thus could simply be ignored I'd
> think.  In any case it's wrong in that it doesn't mention the --miniicon
> thing and the --icon thing.
>
> In this case can we update the spec so that the above are described well?
> Is there consensus that we should just do it the KDE way?  I'll go change
> the gnome exec stuff to do that to make gnome launch kde apps correctly.
>
> > I agree that %i and %m are defined in a rather weird way but the
> > introduction of %I would break backwards compatibility of .desktop files.
> > E.g. KDE 3.1 is not able to handle a .desktop file with %I in it.
>
> Hmmm, true.  In this case we just have to standardize on the KDE way of
> doing it.  And the spec needs to be updated.

Yes, can you please provide a patch to it.

>
> George
mfg, Heinrich :)