On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 03:17:03 UTC, Michael Kaply <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me clarify some items. > > If we created this, it would come prepopulated with a ton of > mimetype/extension mappings. It essentially equates to the 2.02 list. We > would not prepopulate applications to invoke the various types. > > The main issue here is things that have NOT been added to helper > applications yet or items where the server does not give the mime type. > We need a way to identify what mime type applies to local and unknown > files. > > Try opening a WAV file on your machine without adding a WAV helper or > WAV plugin. What SHOULD happen is that Mozilla should say "This is an > audio/wav, what do you want to do with it" > > OS/2 is the only OS where this doesn't happen because the operating has > no concept of mime/extension mappings. > > As far as why #2 gives us more flexibility, it's simply a numbers game. > In an Os/2 INI you have application, key, value. If I use the OS2 INI, I > have to use something like Mime Types as the app, the extension as the > key and mime type as the value. > > If I use a private INI, all the application values can be the different > extensions and they can have multiple keys, like Mime Type, default > application, etc. > > Mike That is a very clear explanation. Looks like number 2 is the way to go. If it is nicely documented then other applications can use the same INI file to map mime types to helpers. -- Lorne Sunley
