[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 16:56:12
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 08 October 2003 16:45, Nicolas Goutte wrote:
> Too bad, we both seem to have worked on the same stuff. :-(

Hmm. I was afraid of that. That's why I said "I'll do it" when I started to
work on it - I was afraid that nobody would fix it.... Anyway it didn't take long.

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

Sure, since AFAICS the version number is independent from the extra field stuff.

> 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.

You're confusing two things. 
The extra field with the ID "0x000d" includes times and uid/gid indeed.
But that's not the extra field we're using anyway. We're using the one with
the ID "0x5455" ("UT"), which is called "extended timestamp" in the spec,
and which isn't defined by pkware. I guess Hoelger found its definition somewhere
else. It only includes mtime/ctime/atime apparently.

Anyway - I didn't add a yes/no boolean, I added an enum, for this very reason.
If we want to write out other stuff later, we can do so by adding a value to
the enum - and internally, using whichever extra field allows us to model that data.

-- 
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]