Re: Suggestion for file type detection approach

[Geoffrey <esoteric 3times25 net>]

Olaf Fra;czyk wrote:

> File sniffing does not guarantee it either. Users expect, that the
> action (which application is to be run) is determined by file
> extension.

If you're born in a windows world, yes.  I've never expected a file 
extension to define a file type.  I refer again to your typical system 
directories: /bin /usr/bin /sbin ...

> The mime-type idea is a terrible thing for a normal user.
> They simply don't understand it.

Stupid users does not make a solution incorrect.  That's based on your 
definition of a normal user, which apparently excludes most knowledgable 
users.

> > > I am all for nautilus using the extension when available and
> > > sniffing when appropriate (a file missing a suffix or when
> > > requested by the user)
> >
> > File sniffing is at least attempting to apply some logical effort
> > to file determination.
>
> But impractical because of slowness. And not ease to understand for 
> users.

Based on your definition of 'users.'  I'd prefer to give up the time for 
an accurate file identification.  Change the name of a file and you've 
got the wrong identification.

> The ideal would be ti switch to recognizing file type by it's
> extension but if one extension is used for different mime types, then
>  in such case nautilus should detect mime type from file content.
> This should be controlled by user - eg. if user wants to associate an
>  extension with another application, he would get dialog box with 
> question if previous association is to be dropped or if the mime type
>  for this extension should be detected by file content.

I don't believe one solution or the other will please a majority of 
users.  Relying on file extension has gotten windows into a lot of 
trouble.  I prefer both solutions be offered and then let the user 
choose, speed and insecurity or accuracy and security..

--
Until later, Geoffrey	esoteric 3times25 net

Building secure systems inspite of Microsoft