On Sep 23, 2009, at 12:37 PM, BJ Homer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Todd Heberlein <todd_heberl...@mac.com
>wrote:
Inside Snow Leopard's UTI: Apple fixes the Creator Code
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/22/inside_snow_leopards_uti_apple_fixes_the_creator_code.html
Some may also find it misleading, since it implies that the UTI can
be set
on a per-file basis, independent of type code and extension. This
is false.
As a result, most of their conclusions are incorrect as well. If
you can't
set the UTI differently on two files with the same type code and
extension,
it can't serve as a creator code.
I agree.
I found this part of the article misleading in the way you suggest and
was wondering if there was some gab in my knowledge. I'm glad others
have noticed this as well and that my understand was correct.
And, in case others don't know, the UTI associated with a file is
based first on the file extension and second on the File Type code.
This is defined in an applications Info.plist file. I am not sure how
the OS would resolve two different UTIs claiming the same file
extension, but I imagine it would be based on who comes first in the
Launch Services database.
Incidentally, this is not a complaint against UTIs; they are very
useful.
They're just not meant to solve the creator code problem.
I agree.
I like the move to UTIs and am glad Creator Codes and File Types are
rapidly disappearing, but let's not forget that there was a real
tradeoff.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
