RA Brown - rabr...@the-martin-byrd.net wrote:
Kevin Reynolds wrote:
I don't know if it's a reasonable statement from anyone's point of
view but it sure is an outstanding one!
Here here!
Hi Kevin,
It is probably out on the limits of reason but I see it as a very
favorable feature.
For example, I have to deal with several related files of a large group
of people. A retirement facility that has state regulations that state
what forms have to be maintained. Some of these forms have to have
signature(s) on them. to store electronic copies these forms are scanned
into PDFs. Other forms use a spreadsheet to keep from having to
rewrite/retype the form. Letters are typed up for mailing to family
members, with copies retained for reference.
Currently I use a subdirectory for each "client" with all these
different files which use different applications to open/edit/print. If
the DOF standard were expanded to cover all these then I would only have
to deal with one application. As side effect is a self-creating archive
that could be stored without having to pack/zip all the files.
But that one application would have to be able to handle every
conceivable file type, which no application is ever going to be able to
do itself. It would still have to call on separate applications to do
anything with the documents.
It seems to me that your current solution is exactly what subdirectories
are for - storing a collection of related documents, possibly in
different formats. If you need to pack them into a single file, e.g. to
send to someone else, why not just use a format designed to do just
that, like zip?
Another place this would seem to be useful is electronic medical
records. I need more work on this before I can say for sure though.
Andy
Mark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@openoffice.org
