On Oct 16, 2012, at 08:10 AM, Christiaan Hofman <cmhof...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do you remember what issues there were with mixing UTI and non-UTI document types?
Does this ring any bells?
http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/archive/macosx-dev/2007-November/060638.html
I think there were problems with the export-only file types, among other things, like calling a .tgz file something other than what the OS calls it?
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.
I haven't looked for a while, but if that's the case, things will certainly go badly. Keeping deprecated load/save methods will also cause problems, so UTI is really all-or-nothing, and when you accept it, you have to go with its limitations (of course!).
I also wrote up some stuff on conflicts and tried to make that document useful for developers without ranting too much about Apple's design decisions. However, if you have more than one UTI for a given tag (i.e., extension), Launch Services wets itself, and Apple really doesn't care.
Adam
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
