On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:12:54AM -0800, Kevin Pilch-Bisson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:29:06PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Nicholas Riley <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > How about creating a separate property namespace for binary properties
> > > then? Or a separate mechanism? Requiring that client developers
> > > somehow agree on a standard for encoding binary props seems like
> > > putting up -more- barriers, not less.
> > So we'd have something like
> > bin:foooooo /* Always binary. */
> > text:fooooo /* Always text. */
> > svn:fooooo /* All are text currently. */
> > props, and any prop without a prefix is either rejected or, maybe,
> > defaults to... What? Bin? Text?
> You know I like this option, but gsvn still wouldn't know how to display
> binary props.
It wouldn't know how to display arbitrary file contents either. This is
not a problem.
> What about text/plain:propname
> I.e. encode the mime type in the propname?
"Easy things easy, hard things possible". The common case will be for
AFAIK reiser4 intends to expose metadata/extended attributes as a
filesystem, so you could "cd" into the file and a "ls" would show you
the attribute names...
"If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is."
41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4
Received on Wed Dec 4 22:22:05 2002
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored