Re: master f8fed41 2/3: image-dired: Improve XDG compliance

[Philip Kaludercic]

Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:

>> From: Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net>
>> Cc: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>,  emacs-devel@gnu.org
>> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 16:14:33 +0000
>> 
>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>> 
>> > XDG is also prone to fashion changes.  What will we do when it goes
>> > out of fashion, and we have dozens of xdg-user-dir calls in our
>> > application code? change all of them to some latest desktop fashion?
>> 
>> What do you mean by this? Shouldn't XDG as a specification prevent this
>> from being an issue?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand the second question.  What can "XDG as a
> specification" prevent?  

I misunderstood what you meant by fashion, assuming you meant how XDG
was implemented was a matter of fashion.

> It cannot prevent XDG ceasing to be the fashion, that's entirely out
> of control of any specification.  Fashions some and go, and when they
> come, users rightfully expect us to support the latest fashions, and
> we generally comply.

If anything, I think XDG is becoming more and more popular since 2003,
and I wouldn't know of any other serious contender to replace XDG.

Generally I'd agree that it would be better to provide better support
for the problem XDG solves, without having to use XDG directly for
cross-platform compliance, but XDG is certainly preferable to
hard-coding directories as is still done in Emacs.

-- 
        Philip Kaludercic