OK. Starting from next release, we'll use the convention that the file extension is the part after the last period of a basename.
Philippe Nobili wrote: >> >> Hussein Shafie a ?crit : >> >>> Vincent Vandenschrick wrote: >>> >>> >>>> I've migrated this morning to the latest 4.1.0 release and found out >>>> that most of the JPEG images were not drawn anymore. After a bit of >>>> investigations, it seems like the problem comes from images with >>>> filenames containing "dots" in addition to the final one before the >>>> extension. >>>> For instance "test.image.jpg" is not displayed correctly whereas >>>> "test-image.jpg" works. So I replaced all "dots" by "dash" and >>>> everything worked fine again. >>>> >>>> >>> The file extension of "test.image.jpg" is considered to be "image.jpg" >>> and not "jpg". And, of course, "image.jpg" is an unsupported format. >>> >>> This seems stupid because, in your case, the file extension is obviously >>> "jpg". But in the general case, this is not always true. Example: >>> xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar.gz (the file extension is "tar.gz" and not "gz") >>> >>> Therefore, we are currently not 100% sure that this problem needs to fixed. > Vincent Vandenschrick wrote: >> Thanks for the answer Hussein, >> That's perfectly clear. >> It would maybe require an entry in the FAQ or somewhere else since this >> behaviour has changed quite recently ? >> >> Best regards, >> Vincent >> > > Dear Mr Hussein, > > I am not sure to 100% agree with your answer to Vincent. Even in the > case you mentioned, xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar.gz is a gzip'd file: it is the > gzip'd version of xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar. Now recursively, based on the > same principle, xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar is the tar'd version of that > xxe-perso-4_1_0, so that you would finally end up with the correct guess > on how to handle this file (would have been simpler with .tgz file...). > > That being said, a FAQ entry somewhere as Vincent suggested would be a > good idea if this is not going to be fixed; but please consider also > before making your decision that existing documents written with > previous versions of XMLMind may reference *a lot* of image files...
