[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] SPEC: wrong mimetype in example
On Monday 05 July 2004 15:14, Daniel Vogelheim wrote: > Hmm, I'm surprised they have a media-type at all... Some inquiring > presents: In OOo, if a directory has semantics of its own (such as a > directory containing a sub-document), then it received a suitable media > type (e.g. that for the sub-document-type). Other directories which are > just there for administrative or convenience reason (such as Pictures/) > have no media type, which is written as an empty attribute. I'm not sure > if it would make sense to introduce a general-purpose directory media-type. Why not completely omit such "administrative" directories from the manifest then? The picture itself is referenced there anyway, I just wonder what's the point in adding an entry for the directory itself. I propose removing manifest entries for such 'administrative' directories as Pictures and Thumbnails. -- David Faure, faure@kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE, Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]