[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office-comment] ZIP specification for ODF 1.2
On Monday 26 October 2009 02:35:44 Leonard Mada wrote: > But then again, I would argue that ODF should support at least tar. > Tar is uncompressed, but it is standardized in POSIX. > It may have some disadvantages, but at least it is standardized. > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_%28file_format%29] This is a bad idea. The format is unsuitable for this task, because of the way it is designed to work (i.e. streamed off tape). > I may want to have later support for other algorithms, > though I believe something standardized is primordial. I don't understand the use of "primordial" to mean anything sensible in this context. Perhaps you can explain / clarify? > TAR allows saving all files (streams) into a single file, > so no problems arise if the document is passed between > different users. There might be issues with UNICODE names, > though I believe that ODF does not include unicode names > (please correct me if I am wrong), and there are problems > with with random access within the file. Lack of random access is a showstopper here. > As an advantage, you could readily compress the tar archive > using any common algorithm like those mentioned on Wikipedia: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_compression This will make the problem worse, not better. > Even more powerful algorithms may arise in the future, > so I would not want to limit ODF to an algorithm of the past > [in 10 years it may be well of the past, e.g. Acrobat seems to > use a different and better algorithm - though I do not have > any data to back this up]. This is not a meaningful comparison. PDF is not ODF, although the compression algorithm may not be different (e.g. both could be using Deflate). > I would rather want to have additional options to use when > compressing the ODF package. As an implementer, less options are better. After all, we're all going to have to do zip anyway. The problem with lack of a standard for zip archiving is really a standardisation lawyer issue, not an interoperability issue. I'd like a better document too, but there are a lot more important things to work on. Brad
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]