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

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: KDE does not recognice KWord docs
From:       Nicolas Goutte <nicolasg () snafu ! de>
Date:       2003-10-08 14:45:47
[Download RAW message or body]

Too bad, we both seem to have worked on the same stuff. :-(

However, your solution still keep OS==3 (Unix) instead of OS==0 (DOS/FAT/...)

Also I do not find it right to define it as extra field yes/no, especially 
that you seems limit it to the modification time. However if KZip would have 
been complete, this would include the Unix uid/gid extra field too.

Have a nice day!

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 13:49, David Faure wrote:
> 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.

____________________________________
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]