After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 117661 - .desktop files: Name vs. GenericName
.desktop files: Name vs. GenericName
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Product: epiphany
Classification: Core
Component: General
0.x
Other All
: Low trivial
: ---
Assigned To: Marco Pesenti Gritti
Marco Pesenti Gritti
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-07-17 09:39 UTC by Egmont Koblinger
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Egmont Koblinger 2003-07-17 09:39:19 UTC
.desktop files shipped with epiphany contain Name=Web Browser.
According to the .desktop file spec on www.freedesktop.org,
it should be Name=Epiphany and GenericName=Web Browser.
Comment 1 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-17 10:29:31 UTC
Uhm I guess HIG and freedesktop comflicts
Comment 2 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-07-17 14:25:44 UTC
I'm wontfixing this unless the panel/nautilus choose generic name 
over name. Seth (to the best of my knowledge)and I both feel that the 
menu title ought to be "Web Browser". FWIW we also think the binary 
name ought to be gnome-web-browser. Epiphany is really a code name.
Comment 3 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-17 15:21:39 UTC
I'm not convinced WONTFIXing this is a good idea. If the two specs
conflicts fixing one of them is probably necessary. Choosing one over
the other will just lead to inconsistency.
Comment 4 Egmont Koblinger 2003-07-17 16:24:47 UTC
It seems to me now that this is a generic question rather
than just a simple issue in Epiphany.

According to the HIG
(http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/1.0/desktop-integration.html
- is this the URL I should look at?) name for Galeon should
be "Galeon Web Browser", not "Web Browser".

IMHO it is definitely a bad idea to only display
"Web Browser" in the menu, in this case you'll have a
"Web Browser" menu entry launching Epiphany, a "Web
Browser" launching Opera, and dozens of other "Web
Broswer"'s.

HIG explains why "Nautilus File Manager" is generally
better than "Nautilus". It is definitely right if it
appears under the Utilities menu for example. However, if
it appears under Utilities->File Managers, then repeating
"File Manager" is redundant and IMHO does not help. So
whether it is good to show the GeneralName might depend on
how the menu is organized.

Currently there's a small conflict between the .desktop
spec and HIG's recommendation, since this latter one
redefines the semantics of the Name field. This is bad.
The aim of freedesktop is to provide a common base for
all desktop environments. Gnome should exactly follow it,
or extend it with its own X-Gnome-Name fields or ask its
maintainers to modify the official desktop spec if Gnome
developers think it is wrong.

KDE follows the .desktop spec, fills Name and GenericName
accordingly. It is configurable in the Control Center
whether menus should display "Name", "Name (GenericName)"
or "GenericName (Name)". IMHO this should be followed by
Gnome, too. If Gnome developers think that putting a kind
of description and not only the application name in the
menu helps the user, then menus should show the value of
GenericName, but Name still should only contain the name.

(If you think there's a better forum to discuss it rather
than here in bugzilla (e.g. a mailing list), please let me
know, I'll join that.)
Comment 5 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-17 16:48:38 UTC
1 If your application's proper name is already descriptive of its
functionality, and not just suggestive, use the format: Application Name

2 If there is a succinct functional description of your application,
use the format: ApplicationName FunctionalDescription

IHMO the hig is really not clear here :/ Dave seem to consider
Epiphany just a code name and "Web browser" the real name. In that
case we fall in case 1. The question is what's the best name for
Epiphany I guess ;)

I guess this should be brought on usability list (and maybe
desktop-devel). I already see Jeff flames though ;)
I dont have a strong opinion myself, I'm fine with going with what the
community think is better. Basically I agree that apps names should be
functional but web browsers on linux are 2000, so I'm not sure if it's
doable atm.
Comment 6 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-07-17 17:03:43 UTC
well worst comes to worst it should definately be gnome web browser
not epiphany...although i still feel web browser is the best label in
terms of usability for the gnome desktop (which is what i'm most
concerned with distros can change the menus titles if they choose but
thats not our concern).
Comment 7 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-17 17:21:47 UTC
IHMO Gnome web browser would be worst that Epiphany Web Browser, you
expose a concept that should not be in the user model.
Anyway, what do you think about discussing this on gnome lists?
Comment 8 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-20 11:39:15 UTC
We need to make a call for 1.0
Comment 9 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-07-20 12:40:36 UTC
I think the 1.0 call ought to be to leave it as is, because it is
better for the usability of the gnome desktop as a whole. If
distributors want specific names in the apps menu they can change them
themselves. Gnome already does this for the "Text Editor" for
instance, and redhat relabels stuff when appropriate.
Comment 10 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-07-20 14:54:59 UTC
I still think it would be good to discuss it on mailing lists :)
Comment 11 Christophe Fergeau 2003-08-06 17:29:34 UTC
I definitely think epiphany should appear somewhere in the menu entry,
if galeon, mozilla, ... chooses to use "Web Browser", in the end this
will be really confusing...
Comment 12 Marco Pesenti Gritti 2003-10-30 12:15:21 UTC
Closing this for now. A general discussion is being made on
desktop-devel. If there will be specific fix requests based on a
common gnome decision, we will fix them.