Re: MIME type for PDB files.
Le Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 02:28:24PM +0100, Daniel Leidert a écrit :
> Am Dienstag, den 15.01.2008, 20:33 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> > Le Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 12:08:35PM +0100, Daniel Leidert a écrit :
>
> Well, I personally think, that we should *not* try to detect all broken
> formats, because companies/authors should better fix their software. So
> I try to make a compromise between the detection of a file with a broken
> format and broken files that are "broken too much".
OK, then lines such as the following could be removed:
<match type="string" value="COMPND " offset="0"/>
<match type="string" value="CRYST1 " offset="0"/>
<match type="string" value="DBREF " offset="0"/>
except for:
<match type="string" value="HEADER " offset="0"/>
> I think the impact of renaming well established MIME
> type names without a wide consensus (much wider than just between Debian
> package maintainers) creates a bigger problem than using the unofficial
> primary type "chemical". I know, the situation is not the best atm.
> That's why I start discussions about it from tiem to time. You can find
> the latest at:
> http://www.nabble.com/Re:-SMILES-mime-types-p14229988.html.
Good to know that 10 years after, people still care !
> > Maybe a solution would be to patch update-mime-database to make it
> > accept chemical as a legitimate type:
>
> Or just output a warning once or do not output warnings for "x-"
> prefixed primary types (which would allow us to use x-chemical and add
> aliases to chemical/).
Sure. Not being a C programmer, I can not propose a patch for this.
> Creating a new RfC also means to define chemical/* types like text/plain
> or application/octet-stream were defined in the MIME RfCs. So there are
> currently a lot of chemical MIME types ... to be honest: much more than
> during the original RfC in 1994/5. But we should try to avoid to use
> chemical/* for every new chemistry related file format. We should be
> careful and use appropriate existing primary types if possible. For
> example: It doesn't make sense to name the gchempaint or gcrystal
> formats chemical/*, because they are application specific and therefor
> fit the application/ type much better. However, chemical/ was created,
> because exchangeable chemical file formats do not fit into the existing
> primary types.
OK, to summarise:
- If a chemical/* media type already exists, we will use it.
- We will not create new chemical/* media types.
- We will not migrate some types from chemical/* to text/*.
- If somebody can propose a patch that reduces the size of the warning for using
the chemical/* types, we will make our packages recommend chemical-mime-data,
and file wishlist bugs wherever appropriate.
Can you suggest an appropriate place where we can discuss about creating a
media type for Clustal W alignments and trees ?
Have a nice day,
--
Charles Plessy
http://charles.plessy.org
Wakō, Saitama, Japan
Reply to: