On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:36:41PM +0000, Alan Horkan wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Manish Singh wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:30:03PM +0000, John Cupitt wrote:
> > > > Of course, OpenDocument document structure (ZIP archive with multiply
> > > > files inside) could be followed.
> > >
> > > Yes, this sounds much more sensible.
> > As a concept, yes. Actually using ZIP is a stupid decision,
> It is a decision with some trade-offs.
> I'm surprised you would dimiss it as "stupid" without knowing more about
> what problems they were trying to solve, obviously the smallest
> compression wasn't their only priority.
Why do you assume I'm calling it stupid because of compression issues?
> One thing Zip has that other archive formats don't seem to have is an
> internal filesystem, and some files inside the zip can be more
> compressed than others making it a good container format. An index or
> manifest can be left uncompressed, whereas other files within the archive
> can be more heavily compressed if desired.
One big failure is that the manifest is at the *end* of the file, which
makes recovering data from partial files a lot harder.
> > and I wonder what the rationale for using it was.
> There are more detailed explainations available (I read one very long and
> detailed report on it when it was first added to OpenOffice) but if you
> can find the list of requirements they had it should become clear.
And this is what I asked about. Thanks for the handwave instead of an
> No need to say unpleasant things about OpenDocument.
No need to post emails that don't answer the question I asked about, and
instead waste my time with baseless speculation.
Gimp-developer mailing list