[PROPOSAL] Desktop Bookmarks

[Dave Cridland]

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 
> remove
> older entries (where "older" means "older than a limit conveniently
> choosen by fd.o or set by the user").  This could avoid unnecessary
> clutter.
> 
> 
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.

Dave.