Icon-mime type associations

Frans Englich frans.englich at telia.com
Fri Sep 17 01:56:34 EEST 2004

On Thursday 16 September 2004 22:20, you wrote:
> * Frans Englich <frans.englich at telia.com> [Sep 17. 2004 00:01]:
> > On Thursday 16 September 2004 01:48, Ryan Gammon wrote:
> >
> > A common use of mimetype icons is to follow up the document/context
> > centric model; an icon tries to resemble what it represents as close as
> > possible in order to make the user's association steps as short as
> > possible. Functional names is another example. If cases like this(3rd
> > party branding, I guess) is the major reason for the usage of such an
> > mechanism, it would be a step backwards in terms of usability, AFAICT.
> >
> > Another aspect is how much influence 3rd parties should have on the
> > system, and hence who "decides" how the system should be. For
> > example(from anecdotal evidence), in MS Windows, the installing of
> > applications is quite intrusive since they change MIME-association
> > priorities, icons, etc. -- "This application should You use". I think
> > holding back 3rd parties' influence would gain the user(whom's concern is
> > not only one application), promote consistency & usability, and help
> > avoiding the chaos of applications which Windows have. (as Jakub
> > discussed)
> I agree 100%. I should, of course, also be possible to change which
> programs are set as "default", even if the distributor/desktop wanted
> you to use something else.

As it currently is, although it's not in any Free Desktop spec, but specific 
to each desktop environment(AFAIK).



More information about the xdg mailing list