Re: Classifying files as binary or text

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM, Mike Samuel <mikesamuel_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Agreed.  I posted this idea for criticism and I think the criticism
> it's received is entirely appropriate.
>
> That said, it's hard to respond to nebulous claims like "one-off
> hacks", "maintenance burden", etc.  I've asserted that this is
> updating the interpretation of svn:mime-type which is a
> well-documented standard and is widely understood by developers, so I
> think the chance for user-surprise is low.  I've yet to see a
> refutation of that claim, and it seems clear to me that adding new
> property types with unclear semantics is exactly the kind of
> maintenance headache you describe.

The potential maintenance burden is based on how you would handle
valid charset values that we cannot support. Especially if new values
can be created in the future. I do not understand why a new property
would have unclear semantics. Especially if the purpose of the
property is tied directly to the features it is related to. If
anything the current svn:mime-type property was an example of unclear
semantics. We obviously have to live with that now and I can
appreciate you trying to make the existing function work better.

I am not against your proposal. I just have some questions and want
to toss out other ways that maybe are better and maybe are not.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2417384