On Aug 2, 2010, at 20:11, Jerry Krinock wrote: > It seems to me that, throughout Cocoa documentation, Apple uses the phrase > "document type" to mean three different things: Display Name, UTI, and > Filename Extension. For example, in the documentation of > -writeSafelyToURL:ofType:forSaveOperation:error:, the ofType: parameter is > documented as "The string that identifies the document type." Grrrrrr. > > I know I've submitted Document Feedback on this previously. I'm in the mood > to file a formal bug. Am I just missing it somewhere?
Historically, "document type" means the string in the plist (what you've called the Display Name). Leopard added the ability for that string to be replaced a UTI also specified in the plist. Methods expecting a document type string distinguish between the two forms, presumably, by the presence of periods in the string. In that sense, the Display Name and the UTI are really the same thing, or rather alternatives for the same thing. (However, the documentation never suggests that you can switch between the two in different NSDocument method invocations for a single existing document object. Clearly, you've found that doesn't work, though you might have trouble getting it classified as a bug.) Presumably, the UTI version is now preferred to the old kind of string, and presumably the old kind will be deprecated at some point, but the supremacy of UTIs doesn't seem to have trickled through to the NSDocument documentation yet. I'm not aware that file extensions are ever regarded as document types, in the API or the documentation. The most likely place to specify an extension, in Open and Save dialog parameters, is a file type rather than a document type. It, too, BTW can be replaced* by a UTI since Leopard, but the mechanism is distinct from the alternation of UTIs and document types. With the current file system architecture, UTIs don't replace file extensions, because UTIs aren't stored anywhere in the file system -- they're just a more robust and indirect way of specifying extensions*. > WHY DID THE OBJECT DISAPPEAR? I don't have a clue, but if it's not permitted to vary the form of the document type string between method invocations, you might also have trouble getting this classified as a bug, too. *File types are also specifiable as 4-character classic file type values, so there are actual three alternate means of specifying file type, while there are only two (AFAIK) for document types. _______________________________________________ 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
