[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: KDE does not recognice KWord docs
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () microweb ! nl>
Date:       2003-09-28 18:59:08
[Download RAW message or body]

This has never been about kword files ending in .kwd
This is about kword files with no extension. Basically because I hate
extension, they look ugly

I seem to be one of the very few that actually uses no-extension files
and runs head.

Notice that I recompiled my machine shortly ago after months of running
BRANCH.

I assume there is no action to be done from my side. I'll hear if anyone was
expecting something different.

On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 03:39:04PM +0200, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> I think I understand now. I also see that in far future KZIp could support ACL 
> (access control lists) and we would have the problem again and in a increased 
> form, as it would not be a fixed size.
> 
> So yes, it is better to decide to keep the "bare" fat format.
> 
> However, what I am wondering now, is why this issue has come up months later. 
> (The KZip commit was in February.) Are files ending in .kwd not recognized as 
> KWord files anymore. Is there another bug somewhere?
> 
> (You could test by extracting a maindoc.xml from a KWord file and renaming it 
> as maindoc.kwd. It should be a KWord file, as KWord should be able to load 
> raw KWord XML files.)
> 
> Have a nice day!
> 
> On Sunday 28 September 2003 07:47, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 02:11:28AM +0200, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > On Sunday 28 September 2003 00:37, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 27 September 2003 23:48, David Faure wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday 27 September 2003 20:25, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> > > > > Yes, I think we shouldn't do something that changes our 'magic'
> > > > > recognition: * other projects/tools/etc. might use the magic we had
> > > > > previously, this change will break it * are we sure that the new
> > > > > offset is always going to be 55? What's between position 30 and
> > > > > position 55? This looks more fragile to me.
> > > >
> > > > I do not understand what "fragile" means here. It is the Unix
> > > > extension. The only problem is that there are three kinds of Unix
> > > > extensions. (The PKWARE one with id 0x000d, the InfoZIP old one with id
> > > > 0x5855, the new one with id 0x7855.) KZip seems to have chosen the old
> > > > one and does not support the other two, not even at read.
> > >
> > > Thinking further, I suppose that what I described is more or less
> > > something what you thought of by using the word "fragile".
> >
> > I think David is afraid that the offset I saw in my files (of 55) might
> > be different in some cases.
> > This can happen if more or less bytes are added in the header due to
> > these versions, or even due to a programmed extension that generates more
> > or less bytes.
> >
> > Hope that clears it up.

-- 
Thomas Zander
____________________________________
koffice mailing list
koffice@mail.kde.org
To unsubscribe please visit:
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]