Re: wxWindows and GNOME

[bob cs csoft net]

I would consider any data that I might want to keep important.
For example, I might want to give a discription to a file so I can find it
again. A file discription should not nessisarily be part of the file
itself because not all formats are designed for it. A flopy image could
not have a discription in it, but it would be nice to know what the image
contained. If I have a directory with many files and many discriptions
and loose the metadata, I might have some problems finding the file I want
later on.

Another interesting thing that can be used in metadata is mime type. Have
the mime type in the file so it can be easily identifed. It would be
faster then magic mime typing, would allow you to change association
fairly quickly, and would be important. It would suck if you had to
reassociate a directory of your 1000 images if your metadatabase gets
corrupted or you deside to transfer the files to someone else.
For speed, the internal file metadatabase can be copied to the users to
allow for quick scaning later.

On Sat, 28 Aug 1999, Tom Tromey wrote:

> >>>>> "Bob" == bob  <bob@cs.csoft.net> writes:
> 
> Bob> The current metadata implamentation is good for non important
> Bob> metadata. As soon as important metadata is placed in it, we will
> Bob> start having some big problems. Look at the mac for some good
> Bob> examples. We need a method for storing important metadata as
> Bob> well.
> 
> Can you give an example of important metadata that shouldn't just be
> part of the file?
> 
> T
>