On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:08:11PM -0600, Jon Trowbridge wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 14:55, Nicholas Riley wrote:
> > 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.
>
> In the long run, I think that namespacing properties is a losing
> proposition.
>
> To be really useful and to interoperate, we need to know more than if a
> chunk of data is binary or not. If we are going to have some metadata
> on our metadata, we should take it to its logical conclusion and have a
> way of attaching mime-type information to properties. That way a client
> could at least theoretically do the right thing with the data --- like
> pop up an image viewer when you ask to look at the PNG that you've put
> in a property.
>
> Even if binary properties are encoded in base64, the mime type should
> still be embedded in the prop in some systematic way.
You could look at $prop:mime-type to find information about $prop.
But if your object is that complex, you might want to turn it into a
directory with files. That way, you will have more tools available to
operate on your bits and we can avoid the property-editor-flamewar ;)
florin
--
"If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is."
41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Wed Dec 4 22:25:38 2002