On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, even if it was possible to attach an UTI to a file, you would be > force to continue to use (nasty old fashioned) extensions for compatibility > with other OS.
That's an argument for creating files with appropriate file name extensions by default, but it's not an argument for making the file name extension the canonical source for file type information in Mac OS X, especially when a great system like UTIs already exists. UTIs are much more flexible and powerful than extensions. They should be the "source of truth" for file typing in Mac OS X (attached using xattrs or a similar mechanism), and all other manifestations of file type information (extensions, type codes) should be derived from (and synced to) UTIs as needed, their existence only necessary as a means of compatibility with legacy code and systems. IOW, it's an inversion of the current policy, going from extensions as canonical and UTIs as derived to UTIs as canonical (and actually stored, if possible) and extensions as derived. Now, this policy change doesn't *necessarily* imply a change in behavior from the user's perspective. What it does do is clean up the developer's view of file typing, as well as opening the door for much more robust and sophisticated user-facing policies based on file type information down the road. -John _______________________________________________ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
