On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:06:48PM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote: > Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 02:51:53AM +0100, Moritz Moeller-Herrmann wrote: > > >> You do realize that the desktop standard has more features than the > >> debian menu system? Like i18n, icon theming, dynamic construction of a > >> menu hierarchy based on user /Desktop system preferences and so on? And > >> that this information would be lost? Why not run it the other way around, > >> convert the existing debian menu entries to .desktop files and work from > >> there? I think that this way would help debian on the desktops. > > > > Because you gain *nothing* and introduce a pointless transition. > > The question to solve is: In which format shall application packages store > their menu information. Users and developers propose following the > freedesktop standard and using this. Freedesktop standard supporting > systems are probably used by 90% of all Debian desktop users.
I doubt that is true. > Now you say: "No let's use the debian menu system, which only we use and > which is not the default of any major WM". This means losing i18n, dynamic > construction of menus and icon theming in 90 % of the desktop, because > Debian menu items do not support these features. Straw man. We can fairly easily add that stuff. > How is this logical? How does the freedesktop standard not "gain" us > features? Because it's not necessary in order to get those features, and they can be added more easily in another way. It's "pass a few more text fields through to the menu methods, and use them to generate .desktop files" versus "rewrite everything". -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
