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

Re: [Fwd: Re: Gnome Icons, Gnome/KDE Menus need improvement]



I've added the entry to the GNOME HIG and closed the bug related,
however now the f.d.o. spec needs to be updated.

In the Desktop Entry Spec:

http://freedesktop.org/Standards/desktop-entry-spec/0.9.4/ar01s04.html

Below: 

Table 2. Standard Keys

Reads:

Name | Specific name of the application, for example "Mozilla".

If you agree that the translation of the generated names is a bad thing,
which I'm certain it is.  I believe this should read something like:

Name | Specific and generic name of the application, for example "Mozilla Web Browser".

That might need to be elaborated on a bit though.

Cheers,
~ Bryan

On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 11:15 -0400, Bryan Clark wrote:
> I made a bug over the weekend to remind myself to fix the HIG on
> this.  
> 
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=144284
> 
> The F.D.O spec seems to suggest that Name is purely the proper name of
> the application without the description of functionality included.  We
> should align on this issue.  My recommendation is to format the Name
> as "[Proper Name] [Description of Functionality]" and GenericName as
> "[Description of Functionality]".  When two applications exist with
> the same "[Description of Functionality]" then the Name is used
> instead.
> 
> I can see the possibility of expecting the "[Proper Name] [Description
> of Functionality]" format to be generated automatically via the way
> the F.D.O. spec is now, however the code isn't there to support this
> and I suspect issues (especially in regards to translation) will arise
> if we try to generate the names automatically.
> 
> ~ Bryan
> 
> On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 10:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: 
> > We do need to fix this HIG vs. desktop entry spec issue. Historically
> > what we've done for Red Hat is just put what we want in Name and ignore
> > GenericName.
> > 
> > Havoc
> > 
> > Email message/mailbox attachment, "Forwarded message - Re: Gnome
> > Icons, Gnome/KDE Menus need improvement"
> > On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 10:01 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: 
> > > What are your thoughts on this
> > > (response to bugzilla re: changing menu entries)
> > > 
> > > Kaffeine Maintainer (Livna.org):
> > > 
> > > ------- Additional Comment #1 From Ville Skyttä 2004-06-13 21:12 --
> > > 
> > > > I am not quite comfortable changing the menu entry because it is implementation
> > > specific how the actual shown label is constructed.  Moreover, we use
> > > freedesktop.org .desktop files to provide the menu entries, and so the 
> > > canonical
> > > specification to follow is the desktop entry specification, which says 
> > > Name is
> > > the app_name, and I'd say GenericName would correspond to app_function.
> > > http://freedesktop.org/Standards/desktop-entry-spec/0.9.4/ar01s04.html
> > > 
> > > Until the ambiguities (and AFAICS even small conflicts) between the 
> > > GNOME HIG
> > > and desktop entry specifications are clarified, and there is a clear 
> > > documented
> > > way how to represent this information in .desktop files in Fedora stuff, 
> > > I do
> > > not want to go into the business of changing things.  What would make 
> > > sense to
> > > me would be to construct the menu entry label like "Name GenericName" 
> > > from the
> > > .desktop entry fields.  That would result in a mess if Name already 
> > > contained
> > > app_function.
> > > 
> > > ===============================================================================
> > > 




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