On Mar 3, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Mike Conley wrote:
> On 02.03.2006, at 20.08 (UTC-0800), Dave Camp scribbled thusly:
>> I contend that applications that do not respect extra contents added
>> to a bundle are equally at fault. When Pages (as an example) saves
>> the open document, it blows away any additional files that were in
>> the in the document bundle instead of preserving them.
> You're placing the burden of support on the wrong shoulders. I
> don't see that other applications/processes have any business
> adding data to another application's bundle; if they do, it's not
> the target application's fault for failing to notice or respect
> said data.
Preserving extra stuff in the bundle would also better match how most
applications worked in previous versions of the Mac OS (pre OS X).
When I start with a SimpleText document, open it in THINK Pascal's
editor, then in MPW's editor, then check it into VOODOO Source Code
Control (each of which were probably considered well behaved Mac
applications in their time), and then check it back out, the document
picks up a whole slew of new resources (I can't remember them all,
EFNT, MPSR, ckid). However, I am then able to open the file back up
in SimpleText which ignores all of this extra material. In fact, I
can't think of any application I've ever used in Classic that would
have failed to open the TEXT document because it contained these
extra resources. And I also don't remember continuing to use
applications that would strip this data. In fact, one nice feature of
each application's ignorance to the extra data was that all of these
different applications could open and change the contents of the file
(including adding information only useful to themselves) without
causing the file to be incompatible with the other applications.
In any case, I don't think we're on-topic any more. We're now having
a debate about what a Mac OS X package is or is not and about what
other Mac programs are or are not allowed to do to another program's
document. As far as svn stands, I think we're all at the position of
"it would be really nice if svn could treat some directories as
opaque/atomic but that isn't going to happen any time soon."
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Fri Mar 3 15:46:18 2006