shared-mime-info's terminology

[Christian Neumair]

Am Fr, den 21.11.2003 schrieb Malcolm Hunter um 0:13:
> On Thursday 20 Nov 2003 16:22, Christian Neumair wrote:
> > Am Do, den 20.11.2003 schrieb Christian Rose um 16:54:
> > > tor 2003-11-20 klockan 16.19 skrev Christian Neumair:
> > > > > > Christian, will you make sure it is written "email" everywhere in
> > > > > > shared-mime-info?
> > > > >
> > > > > Of course :).
> > > > > Patch attached - please check back whether I realized all your
> > > > > suggestions.
> > > >
> > > > Do'h, it contained a few really minor flaws. I changed some "document"
> > > > occurences to "image".
> > >
> > > Also, all references to "header" should per the gnome-vfs style guide
> > > read "source code header".
> >
> > Ok, this is now my fourth attempt.
> > It's really great to get such verbose feedback. After translating the
> > whole stuff I realized a bunch of weaknesses and reworked a few dozen
> > strings (... program => ... script, removed obsolete trailing "file"
> > where possible etc.).
> > Review 'em all, please! :)
> 
>    <mime-type type="text/x-patch">
> -    <_comment>source code patch</_comment>
> +    <_comment>patch</_comment>
> 
> Not "patch file"?
> patch --help:
> Usage: patch [OPTION]... [ORIGFILE [PATCHFILE]]
I don't think we need the additional " file". It doesn't give any
additional information except that it's a file.
Normally you just call it "patch".
- "Hey, menthos, could you please send me that funky sv i18n patch?"
- menthos looks at his i18n organization folder
- menthos finds file - name: funkystuff.bdiff
- menthos right-clicks it, selects "Properties" and looks at the type
field
case 1 - "oh look, it's a »patch« - I must have borked the extension"
case 2 - "oh look, it's a »patch file« - I must have borked the
extension"
so, I think it doesn't matter at all since you already know that this
it's a file.

> BTW Is everyone subscribed to the xdg list, or do we need all the CCs?
Removing menthos since he is definitly subscribed.

regs,
 Chris