NoDisplay interpretation

[Waldo Bastian]

On Sunday 29 August 2004 15:56, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi,
> 	I've just added a test to menu-spec which interprets NoDisplay=true as
> follows:
>
>   - in a .desktop file, it makes that entry basically not exist
>
>   - in a .directory file its the same behaviour as a <Deleted> in the
>     <Menu> node
>
> 	Shout if its being interpreted differently somewhere else.

In KDE we differentiate between "not existing" and "not shown". We use 
"Hidden=true" for "does not exist" and "NoDisplay=true" for "not shown".

For the menu itself this makes no difference, but other applications and e.g. 
the "Run Command" dialog will be able to start applications that are "not 
shown" but they will not be able to start applications that do "not exist"

Likewise for MIME bindings, it is possible to bind a file type to an 
application that is "not shown", but it is not possible to bind it to an 
application that "does not exist".

I quickly checked and I notice that "kbuildsycoca --menutest" does show 
entries with "NoDisplay=true" so I guess it will fail on this new test. It 
should be trivial to patch kbuildsycoca to suppress those entries in the 
--menutest output though.

Cheers,
Waldo
-- 
bastian at kde.org  |   Novell BrainShare Europe 2004   |  bastian at suse.com
bastian at kde.org  | 12-18 September, Barcelona, Spain |  bastian at suse.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20040910/3827be0b/attachment.pgp