RE: [office-comment] 2.8.3.2 size (OpenDocument-v1.2draft7-3.odt)

["Hanssens Bart" <Bart.Hanssens@fedict.be>]

Ming Fei Jia [mailto:jiamingf@cn.ibm.com] wrote:

>I can not understand why it would not be self-explanatory.

Well, if you're not that familiar with ODF, checking for "size" to see if
a file is encrypted or not seems a bit strange at first...
Checking for something called "encryption-data" is more obvious IMHO


>Actually the "size" only is used for encrypted files. And for unencrypted
>file, it is useless. So IMO, the original description is accurate,
>unambiguous.

I was thinking about a DMS/CMS system that would extract the files and does
some extra stuff with the manifest and metadata file. Having the option to
put the file size in the xml could be helpful.
On second thought, you can always do that if you really need to, and it
wouldn't be consistent (since for encrypted files you would have the
original file size, not the current size "on disk" like unencrypted files)


So you're right, it's better to leave it as it is and only use a "size"
attribute for encrypted files.

But I would suggest to rename it to "unencrypted-size", so it's purpose
becomes more obvious even without reading the spec



Just my 2 cents,

Bart