At 9:32 AM -0400 5/5/05, A-NO-NE Music wrote:
Yup, we are all waiting for DW 3.0.3 updater for Tiger compatibility. Did you notice this may be the first DW which is not new OS compatible? Even DW2 was compatible with OSX back then.
They probably don't want to endorse a version that screws up the new filesystem metadata paradigm; though it's not really "new," just widely overlooked.
I suspect that everyone in the directory-polishing community got caught with their pants down. If they really like the Mac they're probably happy about it anyway, this new focus on metadata opens up a lot of possibilities.
Check this out:
<http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/6>.
I had no idea that generic HFS+ could handle this sort of expansion. I thought they'd have to do another reformat/wrapper thing, like they did from HFS to HFS+, to expand metadata facility.*
Hopefully this means we can continue to rely on metadata, and forget about filename extensions and the preposterous ambiguities they create.
I can't figure out how this will affect the translation problems inherent in moving Mac data to DOS/*NIX-formatted file systems. It'll probably just mean a further proliferation of those "annoying and redundant little files," with expanded naming conventions.
To bring this, marginally, back toward a Finale List topic:
Conceivably, Coda could implement its file-saving structure so that its files not only contained TYPE and CREATOR in their metadata, but also an ETF version, a PDF version, a font list, a compressed character-used file (a la Acrobat), and an arbitrarily numerous number of other etceteras. Or not. All inclusions could easily be controlled by the user with a well thought out interface.
The important point is: They would all be in the same "file."
All of them would be moved, or otherwise acted upon, whenever the master file was moved or acted upon, but that would not affect the ability of "simpler" filesystems to open the basic .mus files.
Best wishes,
-=-Dennis
* I think they might go ahead and universally implement HFSX eventually, it could solve some niggling problems left behind in HFS+.
If case-sensitive filenames are the price, I'll pay it. But I won't be happy. I personally think that case-sensitive filenames are a pain in the posterior, but the lack of them is an unnecessary hassle when porting from *NIX to X-11 or X, for some (IMHO poorly written) applications.
. _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
