New handling for URI scheme handlers

[David Faure]

On Tuesday 05 October 2010, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> if consistency reigns and this addition does not achieve consensus
> approval,  we do have .protocol files in KDE already and it would be nice
> (and sensible) to use something that already exists instead of reinventing
> new wheels of incompatibility.

In fact our current system sucks because the definition of the protocol file 
also includes the associated application, so you can't possibly have two 
applications registering for the same protocol, they would try to install the 
same file (or if they use a different filename, the winner is undefined).
On the other hand the mimetype system already solves all these issues, by 
putting the information of "app X can handle Y" in X.desktop, not in a file 
describing Y.

However I understand that your reaction was mostly to the rejected "default 
terminal" proposal; IMHO we could implement that on top of the x-scheme-
handler mechanism, by simply agreeing on a (fake) scheme name for opening a 
terminal ;)

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr
Sponsored by Nokia to work on KDE, incl. Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org).