Shared-mime checking order

Sanel Zukan sanelz at
Fri Jul 27 11:11:04 PDT 2007

Thank you for replies.

> Yeah, I also found that too, when checking my chemical MIME types list.
> Seems, priorities of "50" are enough for magic patterns. Should the spec
> be adjusted? What do you (people in general) think about this? I mean,
> the spec was written to have a standardized way to handle things. That
> doesn't mean, that things cannot be improved :) So is it time to update
> the spec? I would really like to see GNOME and KDE [1] (and other like
> rox-filer, ...) detecting the file types with the same success (of
> course, there are some false positives with the way of GNOME's
> implementation too - so there is place for improvement :)).

Yes; I'm also very interested to see unified detection, even if that
detection for corner cases shows to be wrong.

On other hand (maybe going little bit offtopic, but probably is perfect
time to ask), you (Alexander) noted that GNOME is going to use more
extension approach than mime magic checks. Why this way?

Clearly, user can fix bad detected file by changing extension indeed, 
but how often mime magic can be shown to be wrong? I.e. most of the (let say 
binary) files are distinguished by unique header and returning bad mime 
type (after magic check) is probably result that someone messed with that 

> BCCing David Faure

Thanks; it would be really nice to see other implementations too :-)


More information about the xdg mailing list