Re: Suggestion for file type detection approach

[Peter Lundqvist <peterl update uu se>]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003, Fabio Gomes wrote:
> Em Qui, 2003-12-25 Ã s 14:55, iain escreveu:
> > Which is more common
> > a) Files which are badly named?
> > b) Files which are funny and nautilus sniffs the wrong thing?
> Your b) is probably more common.

Whichever is most common is hard to say.
Which causes the most grief, however, is b).

These faults occur when somone missnames a file.
This is easily repaired if you see it emidiatly, if the icon corresponding
to the contents of the file... this might cause harm on another desktop
system.

Preferably (for me) - content sniffing should be (run time
configurable) optional and if used it should occur when

 a) There is no know suffix
 b) There is spare time

b) could later be used to ad a label to the icon


  +------+
  |    .-----.
  |    | XML |  <- First pass (by suffix)
  |    `-----´
  |      |
  |    .-----.
  |    | MPG |  <- The second pass adds an alternative
  |    `-----´     suggestion if it differs from the suffix
  |      |
  +------+
 
   foo.xml

The lower label (if present) shoul perhaps be grayed out to signal that
this is possibly wrong. It would be healthier to assume that one thing is
the most probable to be correct - I'd prefer that to be suffixes.

.......................http://www.update.uu.se/~peterl.....................
Peter Lundqvist                              /'\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign
Studentv. 32:22B                             \ / No HTML/RTF in email
752 34 Uppsala                                ×  No Word docs in email
Sweden                                       / \ Respect for open standards   
--

remember, information is not knowledge,
knowledge is not wisdom
wisdom is not truth
truth is not beauty
beauty is not love
love is not music
music is the best

 -- Frank Zappa