2012/3/27 夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > --- On Tue, 2012/3/27, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 2012/3/27 夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > >> > >> > --- On Tue, 2012/3/27, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> No. >> >> >> > If you say so... but I'd like to point out that having a place where an application "might or might not" place some controls depending on a condition that is not obvious to the user makes me think this is some unneccessary and avoidable ambiguity in the interface, and I think that's what Tom was getting at. >> >> No that's not the purpose of the application menu. >> It is about splitting application specific controls away from window >> specific ones. Which makes a lot of sense to me. > > I can understand that, and leaving it up to the application is definitely the right thing to do -- but pushing it to a dock-ish location sometimes, but not always, is perhaps at least an awkward move, if not a wrong one. Well the "not always" is due to backwards compatibly apps have to make use of the new API, the App menu only had a "quit" item before now we added an API to allow apps to put application specific controls there. > But I can appreciate the train of thought. We'll see how it plays out. On the other hand, traditional applications have done this by presenting application-wide controls in whatever seemed the "main window" and left peripheral windows without menus or with really specific ones. GIMP is a good example of that, come to think of it. Sure some apps invented there own way to solve this. The application menus are a way to standardize this so it is less "random" i.e to fix the problem you actually complain about ;) -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
