OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only

Re: [office] Re: mimetype for ODF - Macintosh type codes?

  • 1.  Re: [office] Re: mimetype for ODF - Macintosh type codes?

    Posted 03-03-2006 08:43
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    office message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [office] Re: mimetype for ODF - Macintosh type codes?


    David,
    
    you are right, and I also suggest that we of course leave this 
    information in the registration (it was btw. included in the version 
    that I sent to OASIS, see my mail from Feb. 14th: 
    http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200602/msg00057.html)
    
    All the best,
    /lars
    
    David Faure wrote:
    > On Thursday 02 March 2006 16:25, David A. Wheeler wrote:
    > 
    >>the magic numbers of zip are not sufficient to distinguish the format from 
    >>other zip files.
    > 
    > 
    > That is not the case; we chose that the file named "mimetype" would be stored uncompressed
    > and at a fixed offset in the ZIP, so that there _are_ magic numbers for OpenDocument files
    > that use the ZIP storage.
    > 
    > In file(1) syntax:
    > 0    string   PK\003\004
    > 
    >>30  string   mimetype
    >>
    >>>38 string   application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text 
    >>>38 string   application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text-template
    > 
    > etc.
    > 
    > (which means the zip magic in the first 4 bytes, the litteral string "mimetype" at byte offset 30,
    > and the actual mimetype at byte offset 38).
    > 
    > Of course this doesn't apply to uncompressed (flat) XML files, which might need to be explained
    > in the mimetype registration; I'm not sure if it allows for two variants of the same format,
    > one in ZIP form and one in uncompressed XML form.  In any case the ZIP one is the main one,
    > so I think we should describe the magic for it.
    > 
    > James Bryce Clark wrote:
    > 
    >>We noticed that you elect not to use the "+xml" form permitted by RFC 3023. 
    > 
    > Yes, IMHO this makes sense for a format that is primarily ZIP based, and rarely uncompressed xml.
    > 
    
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]