New `MimeType` fields in .desktop

[Jehan Pagès]

Hi!

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 5:15 PM Jan Tojnar <jtojnar at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 15:53, Thomas Kluyver <thomas at kluyver.me.uk>
> wrote:
> > I can see what you're saying, but I don't think it's ridiculous to
> > suggest that a desktop file could encode some indication of how well
> > an application handles a particular file type. You could think of
> > this as describing 'can open' vs 'can import'.
>
> I agree. In addition to that, there is also viewer vs. editor
> distinction. Sometimes I want to view files but other times I want to
> edit them. These are two different actions and could have different
> applications associated to them, since the editors are optimized for
> editing but not really fit for viewing, and the opposite is true for
> viewers. Unfortunately, the desktop entries do not allow specifying
> more than that the program can “open” a file, which lacks semantic
> subtlety.
>

That's an interesting approach. But since it implies a choice from the
start anyway, we would end up in contextual menu (thinking in term of
default interaction). This is why I was thinking it is better to not do
this and just see the files as their most intended intent (which would be
anyway a viewing or an edition format).


> Here are examples of files I often use in two different modes as a web
> developer:
>
> - HTML file is viewed in Web Browser but edited in a text editor.
>

HTML is  a very interesting special case, because it is one of the
exceptions where it is both a display and an edit format. Then in this
case, it's a hard choice. On one hand since you have more people just
viewing HTML files, it feels perfectly logical to use an HTML viewer
(a.k.a. web browser). On the other hand, normally when you have HTML files
lying around in your local disks (not online!), this is because you are a
developer willing to edit them (though you can save html from a browser and
I could definitely see someone surprised to double-click it later and be
welcome by HTML tags in an editor).

- Photos can be viewed in e.g. Eye of GNOME but edited in GIMP.
>

If by photos, you mean for instance JPEG images, then this is a display
format (a very bad one at that, lossy, with ugly display artifacts…). It is
meant for viewing, not editing. Of course I am not saying you should not
edit it, we all edit JPEG images, I do it too. But it's definitely not
meant for being a good photo source for further edit. And most people (even
the ones who edit a lot of JPEG, I think) would probably prefer a simple
viewer as default action when double-clicking for instance.

What is the exact interaction you have in mind which would be the
consequence of making a viewer/editor differentiation?

Jehan


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>


-- 
ZeMarmot open animation film
http://film.zemarmot.net
Liberapay: https://liberapay.com/ZeMarmot/
Patreon: https://patreon.com/zemarmot
Tipeee: https://www.tipeee.com/zemarmot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20210217/eb50637f/attachment.htm>