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

List:       koffice-devel
Subject:    Re: [Daniel.Vogelheim@germany.sun.com: Re: [office_standards] Structured file formats / Packaging]
From:       Thomas Zander <zander () planescape ! com>
Date:       2001-08-16 18:26:24
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:55:48PM -0500, David Faure wrote:
> The answer is YES, I'm interested in a standardized packaging format,
> and yes, ZIP isn't a bad choice. I'm having headaches trying to use tar.gz
> as a stream, which it wasn't meant to be (in particular, the TAR format requires
> to know the size of the file in advance, which completely prevents streaming).
> 
> The only reason we're not using ZIP at the moment is that ... 
> well I don't know any libzip (analogous to libz and libbz2).
> 
> They say they are using ZIP already. How ? Can we share code ? That'd be great.

Yes, I have the source on a CD here somewhere, and its probably on there website...

> The compatibility isn't a big problem, it's easy to have code that reads
> tar.gz and writes ZIP. The only thing is that a manual conversion (the other
> way round) will be required to read a document with an older version of KOffice.

Yes that is what worries me, I worry that people will try to open a document and
find that kword tells them "can't open bla bla"

> He's wrong about "we're the only ones interested in having files parsable
> by common tools" - that's the whole reason why we're using tar.gz and not
> a binary format anymore.

Thanx, that is all I wanted to know ;)

-- 
Thomas Zander                                            zander@earthling.net
The only thing worse than failure is the fear of trying something new

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
_______________________________________________
Koffice-devel mailing list
Koffice-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/koffice-devel


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