[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SEUL: Re: extension binding/enlightenment
Roger R Dingledine wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Some people expressed interest in "extension" binding. You know that
> > thing that when you click on x.doc in windows word for windows is
> > launched with x.doc.
> It strikes me that we have a very powerful 'file' command, to determine what
> sort of thing a given file is. Is it feasible to extend the functionality of
> this command enough that we don't have to have explicit extensions?
Well, of course the bindings would be file-type
bindings rather then extension binding per se.
A filemanager could quickly look at the extension
to find out what icons to display but it shouldn't
rely on this when launching an application for the
file type (just MHO). I think the extensions are nice
for the command line, by the way.