Theodore Hong <twh1 at doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
>There are different types of metadata, though (exhaustively categorized on
>this list previously). For some purposes, it Just Doesn't Matter. In my
>Freenet web browser, for example, I don't give a damn who wrote the song, I
>just want to know its format so I can play it! And I don't want to parse a
>mountain of XML to find out. A header of Content-type: audio/x-wav suits
>me just fine.
It's going to be a VERY rare person indeed who just wants to play an mp3
and doesn't care where it's Beethoven or the Butthole Surfers.
Name and type doesn't do it unless you don't care whether you get
The Beatles or The Doors when you get an mp3 called "The End".
>If you want searchability, add your XML description alongside the file.
Which, as I pointed out, completely prevents searchability.
Unless you really want to open and parse every file in the
system when you search.
>But please don't cram it in the headers when we have a perfectly good
>standard system of identifying types which everyone already supports.
As I also pointed out in my previous message, MIME-types do a perfectly
good job of describing the TYPE of the file.
It's really hard to come up with any occasion where that's much use!
It's very rare in my life that I'm looking for for an HTML file, any
HTML file.
>(As for suffixes, ask Netscape why it keeps trying to play Linux RPM's as
>RealAudio files. =)
Suffixes are clearly an inferior choice. My claim was that MIME-types are
basically not a substantial improvement on MIME-types. (You can just think of
a MIME-type like text/html as two suffixes if you like...)
/t
...get extreme internet radio at <http://extremeNY.com/radio>...
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
