Hi Jehan Pagès, I've been following the discussion the past few days, and I'm not sure it will ultimately be productive along the current path, so I want to offer an alternative that may be worth considering. While I do think it's not unreasonable to add information about the "quality" or "intent" to desktop files, I doubt whether adding to the desktop entry *specification* is the best way to go about things at this point in time. Instead, it might be better to add support in one or more applications through patches, extensions, and the like, demonstrate adoption and *then* standardize around those implementations. (If I understand correctly, based on the excerpt of the desktop entry spec below, there's no prohibition on adding entries outside of those explicitly listed in the standard, so we're good there.) Starting from applications rather than attempting to pre-specify has the advantage that you'd both work out some of the hypotheticals discussed in this thread and that you would more directly help the frustrated users unable to express policies based on the putative "native format" of an application.
> Basic format of the file > > [...] > > Compliant implementations MUST not remove any fields from the file, even if > they don't support them. Such fields must be maintained in a list somewhere, > and if the file is "rewritten", they will be included. This ensures that any > desktop-specific extensions will be preserved even if another system accesses > and changes the file. -- Cheers, Mark W. _______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
