Re: SEUL: Re: extension binding/enlightenment

[Kai Wetzel <k.wetzel@welfen-netz.com>]

Roger R Dingledine wrote:
[...]
> starsend@interlog.com 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.

kai