Confirmed users, Bureaucrats and Sysops emeriti
2,088
edits
Talk:Places:BookmarksComments: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Torisugari (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Orange | Orange | ||
is equivalent to the first chart. "Fruits" is a named directory, "SubDir#1" is a nameless directory. The nature of separator is opened directories and simply a trick for UI. At least, the latter model simplifies the sorting issues.--[[User:Torisugari|Torisugari]] 04:24, 29 October 2006 (PST) | is equivalent to the first chart. "Fruits" is a named directory, "SubDir#1" is a nameless directory. The nature of separator is opened directories and simply a trick for UI. At least, the latter model simplifies the sorting issues.--[[User:Torisugari|Torisugari]] 04:24, 29 October 2006 (PST) | ||
''In response to the comments by Torisugari'' | |||
* URI vs GUID: I didn't catch any discussion of one versus the other, so not really sure what the arguments are here. | |||
* Re: Local folder "Fruits" vs. remote folder "Fruits" - I think each should have a unique identifier. When first syncing legacy datastores there will be lots of dupes. But after the initial cleaning, all subsequent syncs will be far less error prone than using like-ness heuristics to figure out if folders or bookmarks are "the same". | |||
* Re: Supporting separators - I think that truly syncing "bookmarks" involves supporting the related UI constructs: Folders and separators. I think that supporting separators is not hard, and there is not a substantial downside to doing so. Extensions can always choose to ignore them when syncing or integrating. | |||
: [[User:Dietrich|Dietrich]] 11:57, 6 November 2006 (PST) | |||