[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Conforming OpenDocument Text Document, etc.
robert_weir: > On the TC we already see the problem in practice. Kavi does not seem to > be aware of the ODF mimetypes, and if we do not set the file name > correctly, when we download from our own document repository some > documents come down as *.bin files which Windows does not associate with > any editor. Sure, I can figure it out -- save, rename, etc. But to the > average user this is very confusing. The point of having consistent file > extensions is it works well whether your server is configured properly or > not. I think suggesting certain file extensions is important, and SHOULD be included in the document. Many systems (including web servers and most operating systems) use file extensions to make decisions on what to do with a file - so let's make it easy for people who get them! Raising such suggestions to a "should" is defensible, too, as it has the potential to greatly aid interoperability. But we do _not_ want to make this a shall/must (I'm not sure anyone wants it one, but I just wanted to clarify this). In particular, I think the approach of "hiding" editable ODF files inside PDF files is a clever/wonderful one. It means that when you want to create a file that's _intended_ for reading, but you want it to be _possible_ to write, you can do that. But these would end usually end in ".pdf". Also, since ODF is XML, it can be sliced and diced into all sorts of formats; we want to _encourage_ that. --- David A. Wheeler