Re: [udk-dev] New media types for extensions
Hi Joachim, Therefore we could introduce new media types for the contents of the extension, which are only understood by a new version of OOo. This would affect these types: application/vnd.sun.star.uno-component application/vnd.sun.star.uno-typelibrary application/vnd.sun.star.basic-library application/vnd.sun.star.dialog-library application/vnd.sun.star.configuration-data application/vnd.sun.star.configuration-schema application/vnd.sun.star.package-bundle-description We could add a kind of version id to the name. For example: application/vnd.sun.star.uno-component2 Given that those foo2 always look like somebody did not design good enough in the first run ;), I don't like those appended numbers. What about application/org.openoffice.* instead? Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [udk-dev] New media types for extensions
Hi Joachim, this was only an example. Meanwhile I favour the idea of a new file extension for extensions. which means somebody can rename a new extension, requiring license acceptance, to an old extension, and then run it without licence acceptance in 2.0.3. Is this desired? Also, aren't extensions to weak to distinguish file content? Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [udk-dev] New media types for extensions
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: Hi Joachim, this was only an example. Meanwhile I favour the idea of a new file extension for extensions. which means somebody can rename a new extension, requiring license acceptance, to an old extension, and then run it without licence acceptance in 2.0.3. Is this desired? See this thread at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a discussion of why changing anything in manifest.xml does not help here, anyway (.zip). -Stephan Also, aren't extensions to weak to distinguish file content? Ciao Frank - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
