Conflicting mime types

Jerome Leclanche adys.wh at
Wed Mar 20 04:22:41 PDT 2013

There's no need to include the priority value on fd.o.xml; I was thinking
they should have a reasonable default, and if a package wants to overload
an existing mime type they should define the priority value. Anything else
should be considered a bug.

J. Leclanche

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 1:22 PM, David Faure <faure at> wrote:

> On Tuesday 05 March 2013 13:28:15 Thomas Kluyver wrote:
> > In the file structure, the priority attribute is a property of the magic
> > matching rule, not of the mimetype. The description in the spec, on the
> > other hand, seems to be relevant to the Mimetype overall: "Low numbers
> > should be used for more generic types (such as 'gzip compressed data')
> and
> > higher values for specific subtypes (such as a word processor format that
> > happens to use gzip to compress the file)."
> >
> > So does it make sense to use this even when we're not using the magic
> > matching rules?
> No, the "glob weight" is what should be used to choose between two globs.
> But I guess the question is "what if the weights are the same?". Well, same
> globs, same weight, and same magic (or no magic), is a complete conflict, I
> don't think there's anything sensible to do other than fixing the mimetype
> xml
> (which has been done for this case already).
> Maybe Jerome meant addin a new package-level priority value, so that
> always has priority over weird 3rd-party mimetype
> definitions. But I'm not sure we really want that.
> --
> David Faure, faure at,
> Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5
> _______________________________________________
> xdg mailing list
> xdg at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the xdg mailing list