RE: merge mode for XML

[Sean Hager]

> I had understood "pattern matching" to be "pattern
> matching the name, not the contents, of the file".  In
> this context, pattern matching would be an extended
> form of extenstion matching.
> 
> OTOH, the pattern matching you mention is more like
> the magic file.  I actually think this is an even
> better mechanism.  IIRC, magic files work using
> several ways (including extension matching and some
> content checking) to guess at a file's type.  Note
> that the content that "magic" looks at is typically in
> the header or footer of the file in question.  These
> first and/or last few bytes of files are pretty good
> ways to guess at a file's type.  "man file" for an
> example of how well this works.
> 

but only unix files have magic file numbers correct?

> 
> I agree.  This doesn't, however, cover all the
> remaining issues with regards to extension checking:
> 1. Extenstions don't have one-to-one mapping with file
> types.
> 2. Not all files have extensions (this is actually a
> specific case of the former).
> 
> It's also not clear whether you're talking about using
> extensions for the initial settings, or for the
> life-time settings, of the file.  Do you think users
> should be able to override whatever CVS thinks
> "should" happen?
> 
> Noel

For the solid, predictable, common cases CVS could have out of the box 
configurations.  For the not so clear cases, admins would 
configure the perticular installation, and perhaps have to
establish some conventions (naming) to isolate the file type.

But, at least they have the options to do so if they need to.


sean.