In article , Wolf K
wrote:

the only plot is that you're wrong (again).
[...]

You jut love saying that, doncha.

when someone is wrong, yes.

as usual, you snipped the entire context and have nothing better to do
than attack.

You don't read context,

yes i do, and unlike you, i stay on topic.

You _mis_read context. Repeatedly. Hence your irrelevant comments about
MIME.

it was *you* who made irrelevant comments about mime, specifically
network packet headers, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do
with file system metadata. zero.

I was addressing the topic of "Should metadata be included in a
file or stored outside it?" Some people said no, some said that depends.

both are valid, but for different types of metadata.

I said yes, and used data packets as an example of why metadata should
be included with the data.

not only a bad example, but completely irrelevant.

Network data transmission at any level
requires data packets that carry metadata with them, else they can't be
assembled by the recipient computer(s) into the file that's being
transmitted. You can disagree with my stance, but misreading the purpose
of my example won't get you to a good argument (and there are some).

i didn't misread anything. the non-payload portion of a data packet is
*not* called metadata. you are wrong.

I also recall you participating in a technical argy-bargy about data
forks and resource forks, all of which added up to precisely nothing
until Dave Empson's post that gave examples-of. It is very instructive,
and I've saved it for further study.

then you didn't read what i wrote. his post is very complete, while
mine were brief descriptions and also to correct mistakes 'yourname'
made.