According to Dom Lachowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> See my previous posts on structured/embedded storage that people failed to
> respond to. How Word handles things is actually ok.
>
> Word uses OLE2. OLE2 is an embedded FS (a FS inside of a file actually). It
> has separate streams which are comparable to UNIX directories. So there is a
> "WordDocument" stream which contains the markup (equivalent to our ABW
> modulo the <d> tag basically). It also has an object-storage stream, where
> embedded images, excel spreadsheets, etc... get stored. Word has a very
> generic activation mechanism that lets them turn these "files" into
> components.
The idea is not bad. KWord does it with tar.gz (which is screwd IMHO), and
OpenOffice will do this with ZIP (better but not much).
> I've talked with Michael Meeks (Bonobo author and LibOLE2 co-author), Daniel
> Velliard (LibXML author), and some other people here. [what follows is a
> summary of their opinions, which aren't necessarily shared by me] What we're
> doing is considered horrible by them, completely ugly, and probably won't
> work in more complex settings, should be ever choose to add extensibility,
> for example.
What should we do then ?
Create a structure storage model that works ? Use OLE2 ?
BTW I think this is not for 1.0 :-)
Definetly not.
Hub
