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

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: KDE does not recognice KWord docs
From:       David Faure <dfaure () klaralvdalens-datakonsult ! se>
Date:       2003-10-08 11:49:22
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 28 September 2003 00:37, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> I would prefer not going back to fat only. A ZIP file produce on Unix should 
> have the Unix extensions.

But we really don't need modification time for a file inside a KOffice zip file.

> So yes, it is better to decide to keep the "bare" fat format.

Ah, you were convinced in a later mail, ok :)

> I had thought of a few ways:
> - not compressed means "fat" (that solve the mimetype problem only.)
Hmm, that's kind of a hack, since those two things are unrelated.

> - a new method to tell fat-only.
I'll add that - an enum with "what to put in the extra field", currently either
nothing or modification-time.

> - null times means fat. (Yes, I am here again with 1970-01-01)
Eek.

Yes, the problem with this solution is that anyone using another zip writer
("zip", "pkzip", etc. etc.) might end up with an extra field. But whoever does
that should simply use a known extension. Meanwhile, what we want to fix
is the case of KOffice-generated files without extension / with an unknown extension.

-- 
David Faure -- faure@kde.org, dfaure@klaralvdalens-datakonsult.se
Qt/KDE/KOffice developer
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, Platform-independent software solutions
____________________________________
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]