https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=100137
--- Comment #28 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> ---
1. There is no other ODF-authoring program that behaves differently. Or am I
wrong?
2. There is no need to define in ODF standard the things that are
OS/filesystem-dependent. Symlink is such a feature, and all that any program
has to know when working with such feature is its name. It needs not to bother
with its implementation details; the feature is specifically created such that
all the program has to do is to pass the filepath to OS file-handling
functions, and get back the contents of the file in return. This is the essence
of the symlink. It should not be distinguishable from a usual file from
application PoV. Only low-level utilities need to do other things, e.g.
archiving software that may need to exclude symlinked stuff from archiving
because it's actually located in another volume etc.
A feature being udefined in any standard unrelated to the feature means that
this standard assumes that this feature should be used as designed, as defined
in other relevant standards. It doesn't mean that e.g. ODF standard makes this
"undefined" behavior. It *may* be application-defined behavior, which is also
fine. So, LibreOffice defines symlinks treatment as they are intended to be
used. I find it awesome.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Libreoffice-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-bugs
