xdg Digest, Vol 12, Issue 28

Timo Stuelten t.stuelten at tu-bs.de
Tue Mar 8 15:34:07 EET 2005

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com> wrote:
> I'm thinking something along those lines, yes.  The "important" items
> would have their own accessor functions (and may be stored in a more
> optimized form in the metadata structure), but it would basically just
> be a dictionary with strings for keys and values.
> The "important" items would file size, file type, modification date,
> creation date (=modification if backend doesn't support this), encoding
> (extracted from mime type where appropriate), and of course file name.
> Did I miss anything?
Access rights (ACLs)/Owner? At least canWrite/canRead for the current 
Files can have multiple mimetypes (e.g. XML-Files). How to return them? 
(see XDG-mimetype definitions)

Apart from the basic data: How about some xml-like namespace 
scheme, where the returned key are prefixed by e.g. "xdg:" (or "dc:" where appropriate), so there would be no 
key collisions, semantics can be definied somewhere more formally (like 
dc) and fs having their own semantics can use their own prefix? 
Should be no overhead this way and it's probably easier to localize?


Timo Stuelten
mailto: t.stuelten at tu-bs.de

More information about the xdg mailing list