mimetypes for directories?
stefbon at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 02:06:59 PST 2010
No you do not seem to understand. I've explained the need for
mimetypes for directories.
I think that's not only my problem, I think in general that it's a
good thing to have these, to have of classification of directories.
I'm not in irc. I stick to the maillist.
2010/12/21 Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl>:
> Dnia wtorek, 21 grudnia 2010 o 09:14:49 napisałeś:
>> 2010/12/21 Krzysztof Żelechowski <giecrilj at stegny.2a.pl>:
>> > Dnia poniedziałek, 20 grudnia 2010 o 17:59:17 Stef Bon napisał(a):
>> >> Now this construction uses a sort of mimetypes for directories to
>> >> identify directories and the meaning they have in the context.
>> >> For example I'm using the type local.dev.disk.ata.partition for a
>> >> partition on an ata disk.
>> >> Another example: remote.net.smb.share for a remote smb share.
>> > These strings are not media types. A directory has a (fake) media type "inode/directory". It is fake because you cannot send a directory over a network as a unit (which is the problem media types try to address).
>> I understand the difference between a directory and a file. But is
>> that the problem to not have mimetypes for directories?
> Directories do have a media type under XDG; it is "inode/directory". Please join irc:/#freedesktop if you have further questions.
More information about the xdg