shared-mime-info (PR#8278)

We do not usually put features in R which are specific to just some 
distributions of some OSes, and in this case to one editor on those.
We do not for example include the ESS mode for the much-more-widely-used 
Emacs family of editors.

This looks as if it might be appropriate to the Linux binary packages for 
R, so I suggest you contact their maintainers.  But my understanding is 
that this is an issue for gedit and not for R.  Indeed .R is just a 
convention (one of many choices, including .r and .q) for R itself.

I do wonder why you concentrated on .R files and not .Rd files, where I 
find syntax highlighting more useful.

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 mpiktas at gmail.com wrote:

Full_Name: Vaidotas Zemlys
Version: 2.1.1
OS: Ubuntu 05.10
Submission from: (NULL) (213.197.173.50)

Vaidotas Zemlys

NB: signature missing

ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk writes:

We do not usually put features in R which are specific to just some
distributions of some OSes, and in this case to one editor on those.
We do not for example include the ESS mode for the much-more-widely-used
Emacs family of editors.

This looks as if it might be appropriate to the Linux binary packages for
R, so I suggest you contact their maintainers.  But my understanding is
that this is an issue for gedit and not for R.  Indeed .R is just a
convention (one of many choices, including .r and .q) for R itself.

I do wonder why you concentrated on .R files and not .Rd files, where I
find syntax highlighting more useful.

Mime-types shouldn't be distribution-specific or even editor-specific,
should they? The whole point is that they can be used for things like
email attachments that pass from one OS to the other.

It might be useful to have the mime-type definitions for R (and Rd)
files centralized in R core, with the appropriate OS conventions
systematized. But I think we need to know more. Who keeps track of
mime-types? Can we just grab text/x-R (and text/x-Rd and
application/x-Rdata)? To which extent the XML format a standard; is it
only used by particular applications?

On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 mpiktas at gmail.com wrote:

Full_Name: Vaidotas Zemlys
Version: 2.1.1
OS: Ubuntu 05.10
Submission from: (NULL) (213.197.173.50)

.....

Vaidotas Zemlys

NB: signature missing

Er, it came in via the rbugs web interface. We don't usually get
.sig's added to those. We had dozens of messages from VZ on the
regular mail lists, all without a formal .sig, so this would seem to
be the least appropriate time to complain.

-- 
  O__  ---- Peter Dalgaard             ?ster Farimagsgade 5, Entr.B
 c/ /'_ --- Dept. of Biostatistics     PO Box 2099, 1014 Cph. K
(*) \(*) -- University of Copenhagen   Denmark          Ph:  (+45) 35327918
~~~~~~~~~~ - (p.dalgaard at biostat.ku.dk)                  FAX: (+45) 35327907

ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk writes:

We do not usually put features in R which are specific to just some
distributions of some OSes, and in this case to one editor on those.
We do not for example include the ESS mode for the much-more-widely-used
Emacs family of editors.

This looks as if it might be appropriate to the Linux binary packages for
R, so I suggest you contact their maintainers.  But my understanding is
that this is an issue for gedit and not for R.  Indeed .R is just a
convention (one of many choices, including .r and .q) for R itself.

I do wonder why you concentrated on .R files and not .Rd files, where I
find syntax highlighting more useful.

Mime-types shouldn't be distribution-specific or even editor-specific,
should they? The whole point is that they can be used for things like
email attachments that pass from one OS to the other.

It might be useful to have the mime-type definitions for R (and Rd)
files centralized in R core, with the appropriate OS conventions
systematized. But I think we need to know more. Who keeps track of
mime-types? Can we just grab text/x-R (and text/x-Rd and
application/x-Rdata)? To which extent the XML format a standard; is it
only used by particular applications?