xdg-utils xdg-icon-resource's destination icon name

[Rodney Dawes]

On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 15:50 -0800, Daniel Yek wrote:
> What kind of response were expected? Response from desktop implementors? Or 
> Software Vendors?

People subscribed to this mailing list. Preferably people involved in
the development of applications or libraries that implement the specs in
question, and the people working on the specs. Basically, it just needs
some people to look over it and say yay or nay, and why.

> By looking at the documentation, I think the Portland Project was trying to 
> promote the use of the scripts so that in the future, the distributors can 
> change the script and have different actions happening in, then, existing 
> released software packages. This is done by having new system-wide 
> xdg-utils scripts in the path overriding the bundled scripts (appear later 
> in the path). So, even though the existing scripts are resulting in "a 
> mess", but once desktop implementations change, the scripts can stop 
> creating a mess. Sounds like a plan to me and thus its usage can be encouraged.

I suppose that will work later, if the future scripts actually go
through and fix things that previous scripts may have done. However, it
doesn't help with having the problem of conflicts now, which is where
we're at. The longer we wait to fix the real issues, the more problems
we are going to have as side effects because of it. My
personal/professional recommendation would be to not install the icons
in that manner. If others are going to still encourage the usage of
the scripts in that way, then so be it. We can't all agree on everything
all the time. Someone will have to fix the mess at some point.


-- dobey