On Sep 22, 2011, at 5:43 PM, Kyle Sluder wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Charles Srstka > <cocoa...@charlessoft.com> wrote: >> A while ago someone posted on this list that they needed to list all files >> that were applications, including old Classic apps. To do that the old way, >> you’d have to check for .app, bundles with the package bit set and ‘APPL’ in >> the PkgInfo file, and the “APPL”, “APPC”, “APPD”, “APPE”, “cdev”, “dfil”, >> and probably some other type codes I’m forgetting. With UTIs, you just check >> for com.apple.application and be done with it. > > You're conflating the hierarchy afforded by UTIs with the mechanism > used to determine whether a file conforms to an individual UTI. > > Adding a UTI xattr that acts as an override for the > extension/OSType/MIME-based detection approach doesn't make it any > less possible to conform to a UTI hierarchy.
No, but it would no longer be an abstraction over the type system. The idea of UTI is that you just want to handle a certain type of file; you don’t care *how* the OS figures out that it’s that particular type of file. If someone comes up with a newer and better way to implement file types in the future, the UTI system will just be updated to handle that new type system and your app will continue to work with no modifications. That, along with the hierarchy, is what is nice about UTI. Charles_______________________________________________ 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
