[desktop entry spec] new FullName key

[Frederic Peters-5]

Hello all,

In preparation for GNOME Shell a question has been raised about the
way we display the name of the applications; the situation at the
moment in the GNOME Panel is simply to display the Name but it would
be nice to go further, using the GenericName, for example to have menu
items set as:
  <b>D-Feet</b>
  D-Bus Debugger

It would already be possible if Name and GenericName were used in a
consistent way, but as we put whatever we wanted to be displayed in
the menu in Name, we find ourselves with the Name embedding the
GenericName, such as:
  Name=Brasero Disc Burner
  GenericName=Disc Burner

A first proposal was to fix our desktop files (in our official suites
there are only three occurences of this problem) but the issue is
broader (looking at other popular GTK+/GNOME applications, it appears
at least in Banshee, F-Spot, Gnumeric, Liferea, Rhythmbox, etc.) and
it is not certain all of them can be fixed.

Moreover with just Name and GenericName we could end up with having to
concatenate both keys, which would raise unknown translation issues.

Therefore comes this proposal to add a new FullName key, which would
typically be a combination of Name and GenericName, but could also be
a variant, for example:
  Name=Glade
  GenericName=User Interface Designer
  FullName=Glade Interface Designer

As this doesn't change the meaning of existing fields this change
doesn't have any impact on existing desktop files, and programs that
consume them.

How does it sound ?


Cheers,

        Frederic

--- desktop-entry-spec.xml.orig 2009-07-21 17:03:29.000000000 +0200
+++ desktop-entry-spec.xml 2009-07-21 17:03:39.000000000 +0200
@@ -401,6 +401,17 @@
             <entry>1-3</entry>
   </row>
   <row>
+    <entry id="key-fullname"><varname>FullName</varname></entry>
+    <entry>
+          Full name of the application, typically a combination of
+          <varname>Name</varname> and <varname>GenericName</varname>,
+          for example "Mozilla Web Browser".
+    </entry>
+    <entry>localestring</entry>
+    <entry>NO</entry>
+            <entry>1-3</entry>
+  </row>
+  <row>
     <entry id="key-nodisplay"><varname>NoDisplay</varname></entry>
     <entry>
   <varname>NoDisplay</varname> means "this application exists, but don't display it in the menus".
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:20 +0200, Frederic Peters wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> In preparation for GNOME Shell a question has been raised about the
> way we display the name of the applications; the situation at the
> moment in the GNOME Panel is simply to display the Name but it would
> be nice to go further, using the GenericName, for example to have menu
> items set as:
>   <b>D-Feet</b>
>   D-Bus Debugger
>
> It would already be possible if Name and GenericName were used in a
> consistent way, but as we put whatever we wanted to be displayed in
> the menu in Name, we find ourselves with the Name embedding the
> GenericName, such as:
>   Name=Brasero Disc Burner
>   GenericName=Disc Burner
>
> A first proposal was to fix our desktop files (in our official suites
> there are only three occurences of this problem) but the issue is
> broader (looking at other popular GTK+/GNOME applications, it appears
> at least in Banshee, F-Spot, Gnumeric, Liferea, Rhythmbox, etc.) and
> it is not certain all of them can be fixed.
>
> Moreover with just Name and GenericName we could end up with having to
> concatenate both keys, which would raise unknown translation issues.
>
> Therefore comes this proposal to add a new FullName key, which would
> typically be a combination of Name and GenericName, but could also be
> a variant, for example:
>   Name=Glade
>   GenericName=User Interface Designer
>   FullName=Glade Interface Designer
>
> As this doesn't change the meaning of existing fields this change
> doesn't have any impact on existing desktop files, and programs that
> consume them.
>
> How does it sound ?

Sounds very good to me.

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

On Tuesday 21 July 2009, Frederic Peters wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> In preparation for GNOME Shell a question has been raised about the
> way we display the name of the applications; the situation at the
> moment in the GNOME Panel is simply to display the Name but it would
> be nice to go further, using the GenericName, for example to have menu
> items set as:
>   <b>D-Feet</b>
>   D-Bus Debugger
>
> It would already be possible if Name and GenericName were used in a
> consistent way, but as we put whatever we wanted to be displayed in
> the menu in Name, we find ourselves with the Name embedding the
> GenericName, such as:
>   Name=Brasero Disc Burner
>   GenericName=Disc Burner

Bad .desktop file, bad ;)

> A first proposal was to fix our desktop files (in our official suites
> there are only three occurences of this problem) but the issue is
> broader (looking at other popular GTK+/GNOME applications, it appears
> at least in Banshee, F-Spot, Gnumeric, Liferea, Rhythmbox, etc.)

Bad desktop _files_ then.

Indeed evince.desktop 2.26 says
  Name=Document Viewer
  GenericName=Document Viewer
Just fix the file, the Name field should not be generic.

> and it is not certain all of them can be fixed.

Why? There's a limit on the number of files your text editor can open? :-P

> Moreover with just Name and GenericName we could end up with having to
> concatenate both keys, which would raise unknown translation issues.

Simple concatenation is bad, I agree. We use "GenericName (Name)" by default
in KDE, have been doing so for many many years and I don't remember
a single complaint from translators about it.
More precisely, the default is  "GenericName (Name)", but users can also configure
another solution among those four possibilities:
- "Name"
- "GenericName"
- "Name (GenericName)"
- "Name - GenericName"
You don't have to support all these, of course. But the point is that the Name/GenericName
separation is useful so that the menu (implementor, or user) can choose whether to
show short or long descriptions for each entry.

> Therefore comes this proposal to add a new FullName key, which would
> typically be a combination of Name and GenericName, but could also be
> a variant, for example:
>   Name=Glade
>   GenericName=User Interface Designer
>   FullName=Glade Interface Designer

How many ways to we need to call an app? Isn't 5 enough? (2 in the file, 5 for the user
using the above combinations).

> How does it sound ?

It sounds like adding a workaround in a perfectly fine spec, just to accomodate
broken desktop files. How about fixing the desktop files instead? We have a fine
spec, and it's working well, there's no good reason to add yet another key.
I don't understand why editing desktop files to use Name/GenericName properly
is deemed impossible, while editing them to add a new key is no problem; it's
the same amount of files to edit in the first place. And in a way that doesn't
break other desktop environments (currently our menu code has lots
of hacks to accomodate those broken .desktop files you describe... like
"the user selected to see name+genericname, but the broken desktop file
makes the genericname contain the name already so skip the name"... urgh).
There's an easy solution to that problem and to your problem: fixing the desktop files.

--
David Faure, faure@..., sponsored by Qt Software @ Nokia to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Brian J. Tarricone]

On 07/21/2009 08:20 AM, Frederic Peters wrote:

[...]

> It would already be possible if Name and GenericName were used in a
> consistent way, but as we put whatever we wanted to be displayed in
> the menu in Name, we find ourselves with the Name embedding the
> GenericName, such as:
>    Name=Brasero Disc Burner
>    GenericName=Disc Burner
>
> A first proposal was to fix our desktop files (in our official suites
> there are only three occurences of this problem) but the issue is
> broader (looking at other popular GTK+/GNOME applications, it appears
> at least in Banshee, F-Spot, Gnumeric, Liferea, Rhythmbox, etc.) and
> it is not certain all of them can be fixed.

Sure they can!  Submit patches upstream.  If they get rejected, then the
apps look stupid when displayed in GNOME Shell, and the app authors
eventually will feel shamed into fixing them.

> Therefore comes this proposal to add a new FullName key, which would
> typically be a combination of Name and GenericName, but could also be
> a variant, for example:
>    Name=Glade
>    GenericName=User Interface Designer
>    FullName=Glade Interface Designer
>
> As this doesn't change the meaning of existing fields this change
> doesn't have any impact on existing desktop files, and programs that
> consume them.
>
> How does it sound ?

It sounds like a failure to address a problem in the correct way, and
instead paper it over with a band-aid in an official spec.

(Not that I'm not guilty of doing similar things from time to time, but
at least I don't try to get them standardized!)

        -brian
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Dan Winship-2]

On 07/21/2009 11:20 AM, Frederic Peters wrote:

> Therefore comes this proposal to add a new FullName key, which would
> typically be a combination of Name and GenericName, but could also be
> a variant, for example:
>   Name=Glade
>   GenericName=User Interface Designer
>   FullName=Glade Interface Designer
>
> As this doesn't change the meaning of existing fields this change
> doesn't have any impact on existing desktop files, and programs that
> consume them.
>
> How does it sound ?

Well, but you don't need FullName to be able to do the example you gave:

  <b>D-Feet</b>
  D-Bus Debugger

And I think doing things like that (or like "Name (GenericName)" or
"GenericName <small>(Name)</small>" or whatever, with some sort of
punctuation or layout) is vastly better than the "Name GenericName"
convention that we somehow ended up with, which always sounds awkward
and ungrammatical to me. ("Glade Interface Designer" == application for
designing interfaces to glades).

So I'm in favor of fixing the "Name" fields as you describe, but not
adding FullName.

-- Dan
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Matthias Clasen]

On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 22:27 +0200, David Faure wrote:

> It sounds like adding a workaround in a perfectly fine spec, just to accomodate
> broken desktop files.

The spec is not fine here, and your sarcasm doesn't make it any truer.

The solutions you propose add clutter to the menus, in the form of
parens or dashes, just to cover up the fact that there is no good way to
combine the two fields that does not cause translation problems.

Matthias

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 22:27 +0200, David Faure wrote:
>
> > It sounds like adding a workaround in a perfectly fine spec, just to accomodate
> > broken desktop files.
>
> The spec is not fine here, and your sarcasm doesn't make it any truer.

This was not sarcastic at all, I consider the spec to be fine on this issue
(and judging by the responses in this thread, I'm not the only one)

> The solutions you propose add clutter to the menus, in the form of
> parens or dashes, just to cover up the fact that there is no good way to
> combine the two fields that does not cause translation problems.

If you don't like parens or dashes, use the more modern two-line solution,
with the name on the first line and the genericname on the second line.
This was the first solution suggested in Frederic's email, and also what
kde4 does by default (I forgot to mention that all the other options I
mentionned are only used in the "old-style" K menu).

--
David Faure, faure@..., sponsored by Qt Software @ Nokia to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Matthias Clasen]

On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 22:53 +0200, David Faure wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 22:27 +0200, David Faure wrote:
> >
> > > It sounds like adding a workaround in a perfectly fine spec, just to accomodate
> > > broken desktop files.
> >
> > The spec is not fine here, and your sarcasm doesn't make it any truer.
>
> This was not sarcastic at all, I consider the spec to be fine on this issue
> (and judging by the responses in this thread, I'm not the only one)

The sarcasm comment referred to the rest of your email....

> > The solutions you propose add clutter to the menus, in the form of
> > parens or dashes, just to cover up the fact that there is no good way to
> > combine the two fields that does not cause translation problems.
>
> If you don't like parens or dashes, use the more modern two-line solution,
> with the name on the first line and the genericname on the second line.

Ok, maybe I should have mentioned newlines as yet another workaround.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that if you want to show a piece of
text as one unit in the interface, it needs to be presented as one unit
to the translators ?



_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > The solutions you propose add clutter to the menus, in the form of
> > > parens or dashes, just to cover up the fact that there is no good way to
> > > combine the two fields that does not cause translation problems.
> >
> > If you don't like parens or dashes, use the more modern two-line solution,
> > with the name on the first line and the genericname on the second line.
>
> Ok, maybe I should have mentioned newlines as yet another workaround.

There are 7 valid ways to use the current stuff (those are not workarounds, sorry),
and you want to introduce an 8th way which requires a new field.
Fine, it's indeed a different way, so indeed it cannot be done perfectly with
the current fields, I agree about that.

But you presented all this as a workaround for broken .desktop files, that
was bound to get you negative reactions. Those broken desktop files
MUST BE FIXED, even if we add a new key to the spec, for the sake of
implementations which do want to use Name and Generic Name separately
rather than an all-in-one FullName.
Adding FullName should NOT be seen as a way to avoid fixing the desktop files.
Your email said exactly that, and that's what I'm completely against.

But if the one who adds FullName to every desktop file also fixes up the
Name and GenericName keys of the file in order to stop the duplication
nonsense there and actually follow the spec then I guess I withdraw my
objection against FullName.

> Why is it so hard to acknowledge that if you want to show a piece of
> text as one unit in the interface, it needs to be presented as one unit
> to the translators ?

Why is it so hard to acknowledge that fixing the existing stuff is more important
than introducing yet more new stuff? ;)


David (going on vacations until August 04, so probably last reply until then)

--
David Faure, faure@..., sponsored by Qt Software @ Nokia to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

On Wednesday 22 July 2009, David Faure wrote:
> > Why is it so hard to acknowledge that if you want to show a piece of
> > text as one unit in the interface, it needs to be presented as one unit
> > to the translators ?
>
> Why is it so hard to acknowledge that fixing the existing stuff is more
> important than introducing yet more new stuff? ;)

even more importantly, it would be more new stuff that would need to be
translated. it would be better to fix the .desktop files which need to be
fixed because they are broken rather than add yet more work for the
translation teams.

--
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Michael Pyne]

On Wednesday 22 July 2009 23:48:32 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 July 2009, David Faure wrote:
> > > Why is it so hard to acknowledge that if you want to show a piece of
> > > text as one unit in the interface, it needs to be presented as one unit
> > > to the translators ?
> >
> > Why is it so hard to acknowledge that fixing the existing stuff is more
> > important than introducing yet more new stuff? ;)
>
> even more importantly, it would be more new stuff that would need to be
> translated. it would be better to fix the .desktop files which need to be
> fixed because they are broken rather than add yet more work for the
> translation teams.

It sounds like everyone wants what's best from an i18n perspective... but has
anyone bothered asking for input from translators or their localization team?  
Is FullName a solution in search of a problem or would it help for
localization?

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Michael Pyne wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 July 2009 23:48:32 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 July 2009, David Faure wrote:
> > > > Why is it so hard to acknowledge that if you want to show a piece of
> > > > text as one unit in the interface, it needs to be presented as one
> > > > unit to the translators ?
> > >
> > > Why is it so hard to acknowledge that fixing the existing stuff is more
> > > important than introducing yet more new stuff? ;)
> >
> > even more importantly, it would be more new stuff that would need to be
> > translated. it would be better to fix the .desktop files which need to be
> > fixed because they are broken rather than add yet more work for the
> > translation teams.
>
> It sounds like everyone wants what's best from an i18n perspective... but
> has anyone bothered asking for input from translators or their localization
> team? Is FullName a solution in search of a problem or would it help for
> localization?

for the two line approach, it's obviously not an issue.

for a single line approach, the () or - approach has worked fine for years.

but yes, of course feel free to ask our i18n people.

--
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Frederic Peters-5]

David Faure wrote:

> But you presented all this as a workaround for broken .desktop files, that
> was bound to get you negative reactions. Those broken desktop files
> MUST BE FIXED, even if we add a new key to the spec, for the sake of
> implementations which do want to use Name and Generic Name separately
> rather than an all-in-one FullName.

Oh, I totally agree with this, the important part of my initial
proposal was lost in the middle of other problems, the justification
for another key was the translation issues:

|> Moreover with just Name and GenericName we could end up with having to
|> concatenate both keys, which would raise unknown translation issues.

(and this is after discussing the matter with GNOME translators)


Of course the broken .desktop files have to be fixed; actually this
proposal came after I looked over many of them (this may explain why
I gave too much space to current bugs).

FWIW my report is published at:
  http://www.gnome.org/~fpeters/reports/desktop_generic_name.html
and bugs are currently being filed.


        Frederic
_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Michael Pyne]

On Thursday 23 July 2009 00:33:39 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > It sounds like everyone wants what's best from an i18n perspective... but
> > has anyone bothered asking for input from translators or their
> > localization team? Is FullName a solution in search of a problem or would
> > it help for localization?
>
> for the two line approach, it's obviously not an issue.
>
> for a single line approach, the () or - approach has worked fine for years.
>
> but yes, of course feel free to ask our i18n people.

I've got no time to do what's already on my TODO list and I'm not volunteering
for this. ;)

It just reminds me of those movies where two men fight over a woman like she's
some kind of valuable trophy and the woman overhears and dumps them both.  If
we're going to change the spec for i18n concerns it would be nice hearing
someone from a i18n who has actually had a problem completing the translation
because the current means available are insufficient.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

On Thursday 23 July 2009, Michael Pyne wrote:
> hearing someone from a i18n who has actually had a problem completing the
> translation because the current means available are insufficient.

it hasn't come up, and we just recently had a full (and at time painful ;)
review of i18n issues in the kde4 desktop shell which prompted a number of
issues to be raised (and solved :). so either the status quo is just taken for
granted and people are working around it to a satisfactory degree or it really
is enough.

i'll ask the i18n guys explicitly the next time i see them, though. (will be
back home in a couple days, which will make that easier)

--
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[PCMan-2]

Adding FullName won't be a good idea. I agree that desktop files
should be fixed instead.
I, however, have a question regarding to usability.
For example, xfce4 uses Terminal as the name of their terminal emulator.
The name Terminal looks somewhat generic.
However, if they show 'xfce4-terminal' in the menu, it is actually a
meaningless name to the users and this can hurt usability.
When naming desktop accessories such as text editor, image view, file
manager, or something similar, using a more generic name is more
friendly to the users.
What does Nautilus mean? It doesn't matter. If it's displayed in the
menu as 'File Manager' rather then 'Nautilus', this will be more user
friendly.
Of course you can show GenericName in tooltips or in the second line,
but for first-time users, it's really hard to find the right program
they want according to the names of the programs.
So, we use generic names in Name keys in our LXDE sometimes when suitable.
For desktop accessories/utilities, I think a more generic name is more
suitable for Name.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Aaron J. Seigo<aseigo@...> wrote:

> On Thursday 23 July 2009, Michael Pyne wrote:
>> hearing someone from a i18n who has actually had a problem completing the
>> translation because the current means available are insufficient.
>
> it hasn't come up, and we just recently had a full (and at time painful ;)
> review of i18n issues in the kde4 desktop shell which prompted a number of
> issues to be raised (and solved :). so either the status quo is just taken for
> granted and people are working around it to a satisfactory degree or it really
> is enough.
>
> i'll ask the i18n guys explicitly the next time i see them, though. (will be
> back home in a couple days, which will make that easier)
>
> --
> Aaron J. Seigo
> humru othro a kohnu se
> GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43
>
> KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Software
>
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg@...
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
>
>

_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Rodney Dawes-2]

On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 20:00 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday 23 July 2009, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > hearing someone from a i18n who has actually had a problem completing the
> > translation because the current means available are insufficient.

The i18n issues aren't in translating the text. It's that if you combine
the two items on a single line, it may not appear to be correct in all
languages. There's a lot you need to consider beyond "is it translated?"

> it hasn't come up, and we just recently had a full (and at time painful ;)
> review of i18n issues in the kde4 desktop shell which prompted a number of
> issues to be raised (and solved :). so either the status quo is just taken for
> granted and people are working around it to a satisfactory degree or it really
> is enough.

Does KDE4 handle ordering of Name and GenericName correctly? IE, for RTL
languages, does it do (GenericName) Name and such?

> i'll ask the i18n guys explicitly the next time i see them, though. (will be
> back home in a couple days, which will make that easier)

Either way, I don't think adding FullName is the answer to the problems.
Part of the problem (at least, for GNOME) is that the HIG tells
developers to do things the broken way, which is generally not suitable
for other desktops, or users. The way to fix broken UI isn't to change
the spec to work with your broken UI, it's to fix the UI. Even in SUSE,
the slab uses the 2-line with the reverse of what I think gnome-shell
wants to do. And we had to patch a crapload of .desktop files so we
could get the right strings, because so many of them are just broken.

And translating the same string multiple times in one file just deal
with UI issues seems like the totally incorrect way to solve whatever
the actual problem is.


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg

[Michael Pyne]

On Friday 24 July 2009 13:35:27 Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 20:00 -0600, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 July 2009, Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > hearing someone from a i18n who has actually had a problem completing
> > > the translation because the current means available are insufficient.
>
> The i18n issues aren't in translating the text. It's that if you combine
> the two items on a single line, it may not appear to be correct in all
> languages. There's a lot you need to consider beyond "is it translated?"

Right.  That's exactly my point actually.  I'm en_US and therefore more or
less unqualified to posit issues that exist with what we've got.  Right now we
have two translatable strings which can be displayed basically however the
translators would need.  In the case of KDE, if the 8 or so options we have
are not sufficient we just need to be told.

The concern here is whether or not having the two separate tokens is alright,
or whether proper translation dictates that the tokens be merged in some way
that is impossible or very hard to handle in code, kind of how "word" +
"word"s (2 tokens) mostly works in English to pluralize but requires more
context in other languages to properly pluralize.  That's the only instance
where I could see FullName being useful, everything else sounds like either
code fixes or .desktop fixes.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne


_______________________________________________
xdg mailing list
xdg@...
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg