From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <326364c20708200434y575bc6bdq5504d096cd429c21@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:34:05 -0400 From: "Tom Lieber" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: everything is a directory In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40708200200p4b924ea7t68600a639e36accd@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <46C5638A.9080507@proweb.co.uk> <1187377796.983193.153800@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <8ccc8ba40708200200p4b924ea7t68600a639e36accd@mail.gmail.com> Topicbox-Message-UUID: ac820302-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 8/20/07, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote: > Do you prefer embedding the "face" in each mail as metadata instead of > keeping a faces db? Why would he? He argued for keeping icons in sync with files -- that's because files change and move. Once you link an address with a face, there are few reasons why that linkage would ever change. > I suffer the same thing with mp3 art, embedded in the mp3s. Lots of dup. data > plus some players that cannot cope with such decorated mp3 files, > including the one > in my car :( If the problem is stuffing data into a file that was never meant to be in the file, attributes are a solution. After all, you quote from jsnx did say, "But where do the oddball intermediaries put their metadata? ... [They] can't very well stuff album art into your .mp3 files" (or something like that...). -- Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/