On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 09:54 +0100, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >The only drawback so far seems to be the fact that if one > >needs flexibility, then every file becomes a subdirectory. > >Not that it is scary or anything, but it smells too much > >of resource forks (or may be I'm just too easily scared). > > it's the other way round: they ought to have represented > collections of related data and metadata using directories > instead of inventing rubbish like resource forks.
Having thought of this some more, I believe you're absolutely right. Now, the *only* thing that you don't get if you go that route is a read/write on a "default" file representation. Thanks, Roman.
