Subject: Re: msword doc bug
From: Arnold M.J. Hennig (amjh@mich.com)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 21:25:47 CST
On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Logan Hall wrote:
> Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
> > At 1:51 PM -0700 1/19/00, Logan Hall wrote:
> > >sterwill@abisource.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Perhaps very soon we'll have a Mac port,
> > >> and I'm not sure what we'll do there. I believe it's common
> > >> to preserve
> > >> the extension in the file names when dealing with Microsoft-tainted
> > >> data on the Macintosh (is this true?).
...............................
> > The main place where you see extensions on the Mac, is where
> > there is a good possibility that the user will be taking to the file
> > to a platform (Wintel or Unix) that requires file extensions for
> > "typing" the files. This is certainly most evident with files
> > destined for the web (.html, .jpg, .gif, etc.), though even standard
> > office files (.doc, .xls) or graphic files being exchanged (.psd,
> > .ai, etc.).
> Ah yes.. i forgot about html and jpg and gif. also for doc files,
> does word add the extention if you save it as a windows word file?
......................................
> The point is that for the Mac port abi should just use the
> type/creater codes that are already inplace to import and export.
> That would make it easer to avoid this same problem of opening a
> file that isn't what its extention says it is. Also could the
> Linux version use the magic number to associate files? .......
Some thoughts on this thread:
1. Please, let's not try to abandon extensions, they're very useful
even when they're not required. Agreed, however, that using the
internal typing codes, where they exist, ought to be used as a test
for file format, even when the extension is present and appears to
be interpreted correctly. Some Linux programs do this, others do not.
However, incorrect format should not be cause to kill the program, as
happens with some programs.
2. Windows 95 and 98 appear to the user not to use extensions,
because they don't display them in the file listings, but in
reality they are more dependent on extensions than previous versions
of Windows and DOS. (A rather ridiculous paradoxical state of
affairs, IMHO!)
3. The reality of the Mac side is not any simpler. Instead of
extensions, they use a two-part file system, and again hide it from
the user for the most part. Having never used a Mac myself, I have on
several occasions had to explain to Mac users how to open a simple
text file retrieved from our BBS interface, for which there was no
resource fork, so that they could import our translations into their
apps. (Same way we always did it with Dos and Unix programs - works
every time, even on Macs ;-) )
I do have it from a friend of mine who is a Mac based graphic artist,
that the correct use of extensions simplifies the job of correctly
importing files from other systems, and that current Windows users
tend to be worse at this than Unix users.
Arnold M.J. Hennig
-------------------------------------------------
128 W Willow amjh@mich.com
Lansing MI 48906 TEL: (517) 374-9408
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Wed Jan 19 2000 - 22:07:10 CST