On Dec 6, 2007, at 22:01 , Eben Eliason wrote: >> So the difference would be that a media viewer that is allowed to >> "open" a >> file must only retain references to the original media instead of >> copying? >> Until very recently, references from one datastore object (the saved >> activity state) to other objects (the media) was dismissed as >> unnecessary. >> Has that position changed? > > I don't think it has anything to do with references. If a media > player opens a movie, for instance, it will likely just store some > data such as the current timecode, but yes, if it did in fact change > the video, I would expect it to make a copy.
How much may the "media player" add? An annotation? A little overlay? A second movie to make a mashup? All this would not change the original video. Or do you mean that only dumb applications (I dare not call them activities) that can play back stuff or edit a single file type are allowed to be prominently present in the "open with" menu? > The difference here is still one of filetype. If I open a .jpg with > Paint, scribble all over it, and save it out, at least every activity > that could open that file before still can, regardless of the fact > that the image isn't the same. If I "open" a jpg with Write and wind > up with a .odt file that contains an image, then I can no longer open > that image in Paint. Activities should "play nice" with files, > ensuring that their type remains constant across opens/edits unless > explicitly told otherwise via importing a document into their own > format or a "keep as...some other type" operation. Sounds like we are back at opening "files" with "apps". I thought the idea was to do away with files. With this, the Journal basically becomes a crippled file manager. - Bert - _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
