Larry Gusaas - [email protected] wrote:
On 2010/06/05 1:09 PM  RA Brown wrote:
Rob Clement wrote:
Are the new icons for the files created by OOo 3.2.1 simply
confusing. For example I have some .doc files sent by fiends and the
icon clearly shows the letters ODF on the icon. Should that not be OOo?

Thanks

Rob

Hi Rob, All.

No it is not a bug. In its great wisdom Oracle has decided that ODF is
more important than OO.o. It has been argued over in the UX mailing list.

Andy

Actually it is a bug. A .doc file is not an ODF file and the ODF icon
should not appear on a .doc file. On my Mac a .doc file has a plain
white icon with a folded corner.

It seems that the ODF cabal, in its great wisdom, overlooked the fact
that MS Window is going to use its icon for .doc files when OOo is set
as the default application for them. There desire to promote the ODF
format (which I support) overwhelms the practical implications of their
autocratic imposition of the ODF icons on the OOo community.

This is not new, but perhaps more noticeable with the new icons. I still have 3.2.0 installed, and even there both MS and ODF formats have the same icons and type descriptions. The icons are fairly generic and relate more to the application rather than the file type, but with Windows Explorer in details view both .doc and .odt files, for example, are shown as type "OpenDocument Text". I think 2.2.0 had similar associations, but I'd never actually taken much notice since I tend to look more at the actual file extensions anyway.

Conversely, old OpenOffice.org 1.1 format files have different icons and type descriptions, so it does appear to be possible to have Windows associate different icons and descriptions with the different types, even though they open with the same application. For example, Explorer shows the type of .sxw files as "OpenOffice.org 1.1 Text Document" (and the icon is different from .doc and .odt files).

Mark.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to