On Oct 16, 2012, at 16:26, Adam R. Maxwell wrote: > > On Oct 16, 2012, at 03:27 , Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Adam, has there ever been a consensus reached on UTIs for tex related types >> such as dvi? Should it be org.tug.tex? Could it now work as a document type? > > Depends on what you mean by consensus. My white paper is here: > > https://code.google.com/p/mactlmgr/source/browse/#svn%2Fmactex_uti > > Jerome Laurens suggested some changes on the mactex list, and TUG didn't have > a problem with using org.tug as the base. I guess I could publish it in > TUGboat or ask for feedback on comp.text.tex. Now that iPad applications are > proliferating, it might be too late... > > I think TeXShop is currently having issues with partial adoption of UTI, > similar to what we had in BibDesk. > > adam
Do you remember what issues there were with mixing UTI and non-UTI document types? It seems TeXShop is really making a mess of it, as they also use the same UTI for different document types. AFAIK that is not supported because the UTI is used as the document types, so I don't even see how that could work. Christiaan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev _______________________________________________ skim-app-develop mailing list skim-app-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/skim-app-develop
