Messages in this thread | | | From | (Jens-Uwe Mager) | Subject | Re: Resource forks and such | Date | 8 Jul 1999 20:47:46 +0200 |
| |
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:22:39 GMT, allbery@kf8nh.apk.net <allbery@kf8nh.apk.net> wrote: >On 6 Jul, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >+----- >| I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but on OS/2 these 'albods' (called >| EAs) were not used for compound documents but they were used to store >| non-critical 'metadata' about files. With OS/2 you could give a different >+--->8 > >That's because IBM didn't like the way they were used in MacOS, so they >restricted the amount of information storable in EAs (64K max IIRC --- >that's total, not per EA). > >That said, the problem with storing the metadata with the file is that >on a multiuser OS different people may want different associations, >different icons, etc.for the same file. So it has to be stored per >user, not per file. Also, how do you assign icons to files which are >readable but not writeable by the current user? Windows, OS/2, etc. >don't need to deal with this (well, NT could, but Microsoft took their >usual "we'll decide what's best" route); Unix-like systems (including >Linux) do.
I think not, the way document types work these should not be changed on a per user basis. For example, if you would store a mime type with each document, then a GIF image will get image/gif and as long as the file is not rewritten to contain something else its meta data should definitely be the same.
-- Jens-Uwe Mager <pgp-mailto:62CFDB25>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |