[desktop entry spec] new FullName key

[Jannis Pohlmann]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 20:40:25 +0200
Luca Ferretti <elle.uca at libero.it> wrote:

> 2009/8/2 Albert Astals Cid <aacid at kde.org>:
> >
> > As i said, the problem is that trying to use the two keys to create
> > a third one is wrong and software that does that should be fixed
> > not to.
> 
> [cut]
> 
> > The question is, do we REALLY need a new key? What's the use case?
> > Menus only? If it's menus, can't we just work out our menus better
> > like for example KDE KickOff does[1] to avoid making translators
> > have even more work than the one they have?
> 
> The use case (i.e. the need to expose in the UI Name+GenericName) that
> come in my mind is File -> Open with $Application in file manager (and
> any other method to "link" file type and application). I suppose the
> KickOff approach is inapplicable here.
> 
> Let me assume that both KDE and GNOME are installed, choosing to use
> only Name, we'll have (html file, for example)
> 
>   Open with Firefox
>   Open with Konqueror
>   Open with Gedit
>   Open with Kwrite
>   Open with Emacs
>   Open with OpenOffice.org Writer
> 
> This way doesn't explain what the application does, users have to know
> this in advance.
> 
> Choosing to use only GenericName
> 
>   Open with Web Browser
>   Open with Web Browser
>   Open with Text Editor
>   Open with Text Editor
>   Open with Text Editor
>   Open with Word Processor
> 
> Icons are needed to differentiate applications,  and users will have
> to associate application icon and name (really really really bad for
> visually impaired people)
> 
> The third solution is use FullName
> 
>   Open with Firefox Web Browser
>   Open with Konqueror Web Browser
>   Open with Emacs Text Editor
>   Open with Kwrite Text Editor
>   Open with Gedit Text Editor
>   Open with OpenOffice.org Writer Word Processor [1]

Well, according to the GNOME HIG, applications are supposed to have
their Name set to e.g. "Epiphany Web Browser" or "Nautilus File
Manager" [1]. (It doesn't explicitely say that, but if you want
"Epiphany Web Browser" to be displayed in menus, setting Name to this is
the only way. Obviously concatenating Name and GenericName doesn't make
any sense at all).

I haven't been following the discussion in every detail, but I'm quite
confused about the intent of the original FullName proposal. Is it
really that desireable to split application entries in menus into two
lines (with Name in the first and GenericName in the second)? I mean,
it uses more vertical space (of which e.g. netbooks don't have too
much) and it doesn't provide more information than using Name the way
the GNOME HIG recommends. Is it really worth breaking so many
applications by adding FullName and changing the meaning of Name? 

If anything is to be added to the spec, I think something like
ShortName (e.g. ShortName=Epiphany, Name=Epiphany Web Browser,
GenericName=Web Browser) would make more sense than to change the
meaning of Name. That way we'd at least maintain backwards
compatibility (by not changing the meaning of Name). But I'm not sure
this is really needed.

  - Jannis

[1] http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/desktop-application-menu.html.en#menu-item-names
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20090802/fac792f7/attachment.pgp