Dear Mime Type Gurus

[Andy Choens]

Well, then at the risk of asking a dumb question...how stable is 4.1.x? 
If this is a fairly "stable" development tree, I might try to go and
upgrade.  But, if  this is "normal" development tree I might not want to
do this, since this computer is my main desktop.

Either way, xfce is going in the right directions.

--andy

On Wed, 2004-04-14 at 10:17, edscott wilson garcia wrote:

> El mié, 14-04-2004 a las 08:54, Andy Choens escribió:
> > I need your help.  I'm in the process of trying to really tweak xffm,
> > and I'm struggling.  So, I thought I would write you this little letter.
> > 
> > For starters, I like it when my xffm uses the correct icon for the
> > correct file type.  Any OOo file, like foo.sxw shows as a plain file,
> > not as a staroffice file.  This concernned me, so I dug around and
> > found:  "/usr/share/xffm/pixmaps/gnome/mime.xml".  I assumed there was a
> > problem with the mime typing.  I was wrong.  Here is an example:
> > 
> > <mime id="xf_vnd.sun.xml.writer"
> > icon="gnome-application-vnd.sun.xml.writer.png"/>
> > 
> > I checked for spelling and I checked for the existence of the file being
> > referenced.  Both check out.  So, I ask you.  Why, oh why does my
> > foo.sxw have this dull white paper-looking icon and not something to do
> > with swriter?
> 
> Because the mime stuff was just a bit broken in the 4.0.x branch. All
> this has changed in the 4.1 (CVS HEAD). With 4.1 I have .sxw files and
> icons are correct according to gnome theme. Unfortunately the change in
> mime stuff for 4.1 involved a switch to freedesktop mime and adding I
> don't know what feature or translation. Since features/translations
> cannot be added to 4.0.x, the correct behaviour has not been backported.
> But in view of the repeated comments on the subject, I am tempted to go
> ahead with the backport anyway, although it would be for 4.0.6 since
> 4.0.5 has already been frozen by Olivier. 
> > 
> > But, my troubles don't end there.  I also struggle assigning the correct
> > application to the correct file-type.  So, I found,
> > "~/.xfce4/xffm/applications.xml".  I thought this might be the answer to
> > all my problems.  My problem is pretty simple.  Thanks to:
> > 
> > <extension id=".tar.gz" application="file-roller"/>
> > 
> > the file myfoo.tar.gz will open with file-roller.  But, if I have
> > myfoo.1.0.1.tar.gz, it craps out and doesn't know what to do with it,
> > unless I prod it to use file-roller.  Now, I am perfectly capable of
> > telling xffm to use file-roller, but I'm a lazy sod and don't want to
> > work anymore than necessary.  I tried to stick a "*" into the xml file,
> > with no success.  Is something like a wild-card possible, and if so,
> > what does it look like?
> 
> Same as above. Fixed in 4.1: just using .tar.gz association works, since
> it will try .1.0.1.tar.gz, .0.1.tar.gz, .1.tar.gz and .tar.gz until it
> gets a hit (with .tar.gz). Not yet backported to <= 4.0.5.
> 
> Edscott
> 
> 
> > 
> > Thanks in advance
> > --andy
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Om Mani Padme Hume
> >         --Traditional Tibetan Blessing
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xfce mailing list
> > Xfce at xfce.org
> > http://lunar-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> > http://www.xfce.org
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce mailing list
> Xfce at xfce.org
> http://lunar-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce
> http://www.xfce.org



Om Mani Padme Hume
        --Traditional Tibetan Blessing
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce/attachments/20040414/8fdf2022/attachment.html>