On 2006-06-09 at 23:57:24 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2006-06-09 at 13:13:35 [+0200], Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > I would add special rule semantics for this, ie. a "text" rule and > > > an > > > "ascii" rule where the former would accept UTF-8 and the latter > > > plain > > > ASCII only, maybe even with a method to specify the minimal > > > congruence. > > I don't quite understand what you mean. I would simply take > > ascmagic.c, > > adjust it (to C++, parameters/return types of the identification > > function, > > strip things I don't need) and return the type it finds. > > I would have enlarged the sniffer rule language for something like > this: > 0.5 [0:511] text > > With add-ons, it's probably not a good idea to do it like this. And that would trigger a built-in check, I suppose? > I am > also not fond of the idea of having any real add-ons in the registrar, > especially third party ones (crashing that one is a very bad idea). Yep, I feel the same. For the time being real add-ons aren't supported, only built-ins. Since there was the vague idea of an index server and moving the background MIME sniffing stuff into that one too, actual add-ons could be supported by it as well. CU, Ingo