small nag about mime apps spec

David Faure faure at
Thu Nov 6 23:51:34 PST 2014

On Wednesday 29 October 2014 16:45:58 Ryan Lortie wrote:
> We considered that it would be "unusual" to get into this situation but
> I don't think we fully thought-out specifically how to avoid this
> situation.  In order to avoid it, we'd have to ensure that when removing
> the formerly default app for a given file type, we'd need to add a new
> default app to the user's mimeapps config.  How do we chose such an app?
>  Random?  Second place after the removed app?  What if there is no 2nd
> app?

Well, either you have to resolve this question at the time of marking the 
application as removed (moment 1), or you have to resolve this question at the 
time of launching a file of that type (moment 2). In essence it's the same 
question that has to be resolved anyway.

Your suggestion below moves the decision from the former to the latter, that's 
all. I'm not opposed to it, but I also don't see a huge benefit in doing so.

Well, more precisely: you're suggesting this is resolved at moment 1, which 
still leaves the question of what to do when launching an app and it wasn't 
already resolved (i.e. the GUI for marking an application as removed didn't 
take care of choosing a new default app), so we also have to implement 
something to resolve the question at moment 2 anyway, no?
(or indeed specify it as "unusual" again, since it's not supposed to happen?)

> In retrospect, I'd like to modify the specification to require that an
> app is valid for a given type in order to be considered as a default. 
> This would mean that removing an association would also cause an app to
> stop being considered as the default and would let us avoid this strange
> wording about "regarded as unusual".

David Faure, faure at,
Working on KDE Frameworks 5

More information about the xdg mailing list