Shared Mime spec: overriding globs locally
alexl at redhat.com
Wed Apr 8 03:20:28 PDT 2009
On Wed, 2009-04-08 at 12:02 +0200, David Faure wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 April 2009, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-03-31 at 20:42 +0200, David Faure wrote:
> > > On Thursday 26 March 2009, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2009-03-26 at 11:30 +0100, David Faure wrote:
> > > > > What's the next step? I can provide a patch for the spec, but I have to rely on you
> > > > > guys to do the code changes.
> > >
> > > Patch for the specification attached, please review.
> > >
> > > > Are there really much code changes required?
> > What are the ordering behaviour of these nodes?
> > For example in this:
> > <glob pattern="*.foo"/>
> > <glob deleteall="true"/>
> > <glob pattern="*.bar"/>
> > Is foo deleted or not?
> > Since deleteall is a attribute of glob, one could do:
> > <glob deleteall="true" pattern="*.foo"/>
> > Is this allowed?
> You're right, this is all a bit fishy.
> > Maybe we should have a <glob-deleteall> node instead to avoid these
> > issues? It would translate in the same way as the above in the files.
> Good idea indeed. And then order doesn't matter, this node means
> delete globs from previous dirs, not delete any globs found here, even if
> it comes after <glob> elements, right? That seems sensible to me.
Yes, that seems better.
Want to update your patch?
More information about the xdg