Rapha and Sven: Thanks for bringing the xdg-list to my attention; let's move further follow-up discussion there. Rapha: Thanks for your comments - I've already considered some of those issues a bit, but you're right, they need to be addressed in the proposal. I'll work on it. Sven: > The point I was trying to make is that thumbnails are _not_ > automatically regeneratable, at least not by the applications reading > them. There are a couple of file formats that only certain > applications understand (such as for example the GIMP XCF format). > A file-manager doesn't know how to create a thumbnail for these file > formats. It still can use the thumbnail that the application which > created the file (GIMP in this expample) wrote to the .thumbnails > directory. That's the whole point of the Thumbnail Managing > Standard. If the .thumbnails directory is being deleted (or lost in a > disk crash), vital information is lost which cannot easily be > regenerated. I'd call that a disaster and thus vote for explicitely > not tagging the .thumbnails directory as a cache directory. It simply > isn't one. Point conceded - I hadn't considered the case of one application making use of thumbnails that only other applications can generate. Thanks. Bryan
