[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [desktop] Please read the vFolder spec [Was: why kde and gnome's menu situation sucks]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2002 at 01:10:57PM +1000, Jeff Waugh scribbled:
> <quote who="Miles Bader"/>
> > I don't think it's bad to prejudice the displayed menus toward the
> > `current environment', but I think the difference between the menus
> > displayed when using a Gnome desktop and those displayed when using a KDE
> > desktop should be fairly minor -- along the lines of different apps
> > showing up in certain places, but _not_ rearranging the whole menu
> > structure.
> > 
> > In other words, we should be using a unified Debian menu structure with
> > appropriate tweaks for certain environments (and in particular, _not_
> > using the default Gnome/KDE menu structures).
> Hey,
> I think this thread could do with a good helping of spec-reading. :-)
>   http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/VFolderDesktops.txt
> You can do almost all of this with the vFolder spec, and the best thing is
> that you will have to do very little work to it them working in GNOME and
> KDE because they will both support the spec. So whatever the .desktop files
> that Debian packages install say, GNOME and KDE will do.
> If anything, you guys should be contributing to the spec, to make sure that
> it works properly for Debian. Then it will truly kick arse for both the
> desktops *and* distributions.
Jeff, while all you write above is true and the vFolder spec is the
mechanism which will be used (as I gather), I thought this discussion was
not about "how to do that technically" but "how to organize the layout". I
doubt vFolder will automagically categorize applications, put them in the
order we wish, add descriptions etc. etc. vFolder is "merely" a way to
technically implement the ideas popping up in this thread, but it's only the
smal tip of an iceberg - first we need to know what and how to put it in the
menus. IMHO, at least.



Attachment: pgp1fE5pn7z2Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: