FROM : Dave Sopchak
DATE : Wed Apr 02 04:00:59 2008
Ah, a subject near and dear to my heart.
I agree with Rainer, UTIs can be deduced from file types, extensions
and file creators, but I would sure like it if one could set a UTI for
a document and have this take care of things, not the other way around.
Also, it certainly seems that UTIs do not do anything to function as
creator codes. Maybe we need a Universal Creator Identifier as well ;)
I love Cocoa, but I absolutely hate file extensions. Sure, they're
nice for compatibility with those "other" operating systems, but I get
tired of
.jpg
.xcodeproj
.iMovieProject
.extensionskeepgettinglongerandlonger
I tried looking around both Carbon (where UTIs seemed to be embraced
first for files) and Cocoa, and cannot find a reasonable way to set a
file's UTI and forgetaboutit, so that it's recognized by the system as
belonging to a specific application, without putting in an extension
or type/creator code. UTIs are clearly an improvement over 32 bit type
codes, but what do I have to do? Would the UTI be associated with the
file's metadata? I think maybe, but in this case I would expect a
specific way for the system to look for this and cannot find
documentation to this end. It seems silly to have UTIs and have them
serve in what seems to me a superfluous manner.
Any advice would be welcome.
I would love (LOVE!) Apple to allow me a way to use UTIs as an
effective way to make file extensions optional, like in the good old
days.
Thanks for any and all. Apologies for the rant.
Dave
On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Rainer Brockerhoff wrote:
> At 15:21 -0700 01/04/08, <email_removed> wrote:
>> From: Andrew Farmer <<email_removed>>
>> References: <<email_removed>>
>> In-Reply-To: <<email_removed>>
>> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:26:58 -0700
>> Message-ID: <<email_removed>>
>>
>> On 01 Apr 08, at 12:59, Marc Respass wrote:
>>> I haven't registered for a creator code since System 7.5. Apple
>>> has information and registration page (http://developer.apple.com/datatype/index.html
>>> ) about it but no indication if it's actually still required. Can
>>> anyone tell me if it is still required or maybe point me at the
>>> right information?
>>
>> Type and creator codes have been deprecated since Tiger, which
>> introduced UTIs. (Maybe even longer; I'm not sure.) Either way, you
>> can safely forget they ever existed.
>
> Type and Creator codes are alive and well in 10.5.x, and I haven't
> seen any mention that they're deprecated.
>
> They're still used by LaunchServices to bind documents to
> applications. UTIs haven't substituted them, mostly because there's
> no field in HFS+ that directly defines a UTI for a specific file;
> instead the UTI is deduced from type, creator and extension (perhaps
> also from file contents in some cases).
>
> What actually happens is that file type is checked first, then file
> extension, then file creator. LaunchServices matches them, in that
> order, to registered applications. The same metadata are also used
> to produce UTIs for that file, which are also used for matching.
>
> It's still useful to register a creator code for your application if
> you have documents/files that have no extensions (in that case, also
> use a type), or that have some otherwise common extension, but still
> need to show your app's document icon. All-lowercase code are
> reserved.
>
> There used to be some problems with using codes that contained
> MacRoman characters with the high bit set - the codes use MacRoman
> but the PkgInfo files (which are mostly obsolete these days) used
> UTF8. I suppose that should work now, although I haven't checked.
>
> Registering a code is much faster now - you get a response within
> minutes, instead of the week it used to take in the System 7 days.
>
> --
> Rainer Brockerhoff <<email_removed>>
> Belo Horizonte, Brazil
> "In the affairs of others even fools are wise
> In their own business even sages err."
> Weblog: http://www.brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php
> _______________________________________________
>
> Cocoa-dev mailing list (<email_removed>)
>
> Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
> Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
>
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/d.<email_removed>
>
> This email sent to d.<email_removed>
DATE : Wed Apr 02 04:00:59 2008
Ah, a subject near and dear to my heart.
I agree with Rainer, UTIs can be deduced from file types, extensions
and file creators, but I would sure like it if one could set a UTI for
a document and have this take care of things, not the other way around.
Also, it certainly seems that UTIs do not do anything to function as
creator codes. Maybe we need a Universal Creator Identifier as well ;)
I love Cocoa, but I absolutely hate file extensions. Sure, they're
nice for compatibility with those "other" operating systems, but I get
tired of
.jpg
.xcodeproj
.iMovieProject
.extensionskeepgettinglongerandlonger
I tried looking around both Carbon (where UTIs seemed to be embraced
first for files) and Cocoa, and cannot find a reasonable way to set a
file's UTI and forgetaboutit, so that it's recognized by the system as
belonging to a specific application, without putting in an extension
or type/creator code. UTIs are clearly an improvement over 32 bit type
codes, but what do I have to do? Would the UTI be associated with the
file's metadata? I think maybe, but in this case I would expect a
specific way for the system to look for this and cannot find
documentation to this end. It seems silly to have UTIs and have them
serve in what seems to me a superfluous manner.
Any advice would be welcome.
I would love (LOVE!) Apple to allow me a way to use UTIs as an
effective way to make file extensions optional, like in the good old
days.
Thanks for any and all. Apologies for the rant.
Dave
On Apr 1, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Rainer Brockerhoff wrote:
> At 15:21 -0700 01/04/08, <email_removed> wrote:
>> From: Andrew Farmer <<email_removed>>
>> References: <<email_removed>>
>> In-Reply-To: <<email_removed>>
>> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 13:26:58 -0700
>> Message-ID: <<email_removed>>
>>
>> On 01 Apr 08, at 12:59, Marc Respass wrote:
>>> I haven't registered for a creator code since System 7.5. Apple
>>> has information and registration page (http://developer.apple.com/datatype/index.html
>>> ) about it but no indication if it's actually still required. Can
>>> anyone tell me if it is still required or maybe point me at the
>>> right information?
>>
>> Type and creator codes have been deprecated since Tiger, which
>> introduced UTIs. (Maybe even longer; I'm not sure.) Either way, you
>> can safely forget they ever existed.
>
> Type and Creator codes are alive and well in 10.5.x, and I haven't
> seen any mention that they're deprecated.
>
> They're still used by LaunchServices to bind documents to
> applications. UTIs haven't substituted them, mostly because there's
> no field in HFS+ that directly defines a UTI for a specific file;
> instead the UTI is deduced from type, creator and extension (perhaps
> also from file contents in some cases).
>
> What actually happens is that file type is checked first, then file
> extension, then file creator. LaunchServices matches them, in that
> order, to registered applications. The same metadata are also used
> to produce UTIs for that file, which are also used for matching.
>
> It's still useful to register a creator code for your application if
> you have documents/files that have no extensions (in that case, also
> use a type), or that have some otherwise common extension, but still
> need to show your app's document icon. All-lowercase code are
> reserved.
>
> There used to be some problems with using codes that contained
> MacRoman characters with the high bit set - the codes use MacRoman
> but the PkgInfo files (which are mostly obsolete these days) used
> UTF8. I suppose that should work now, although I haven't checked.
>
> Registering a code is much faster now - you get a response within
> minutes, instead of the week it used to take in the System 7 days.
>
> --
> Rainer Brockerhoff <<email_removed>>
> Belo Horizonte, Brazil
> "In the affairs of others even fools are wise
> In their own business even sages err."
> Weblog: http://www.brockerhoff.net/bb/viewtopic.php
> _______________________________________________
>
> Cocoa-dev mailing list (<email_removed>)
>
> Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
> Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
>
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
> http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/d.<email_removed>
>
> This email sent to d.<email_removed>
| Related mails | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Marc Respass | Apr 1, 21:59 | |
| Ricky Sharp | Apr 1, 22:22 | |
| Marc Respass | Apr 1, 22:26 | |
| Andrew Farmer | Apr 1, 22:26 | |
| Jeff LaMarche | Apr 1, 22:28 | |
| Marc Respass | Apr 1, 23:35 | |
| has | Apr 2, 00:51 | |
| Jean-Daniel Dupas | Apr 2, 01:42 | |
| Rainer Brockerhoff | Apr 2, 01:44 | |
| Dave Sopchak | Apr 2, 04:00 | |
| Keith Duncan | Apr 2, 12:52 | |
| Jean-Daniel Dupas | Apr 2, 13:46 | |
| Uli Kusterer | Apr 2, 17:17 | |
| Ali Ozer | Apr 2, 18:42 | |
| Ken Thomases | Apr 2, 20:56 | |
| Jean-Daniel Dupas | Apr 2, 21:46 | |
| Scott Ribe | Apr 4, 01:08 | |
| Ali Ozer | Apr 4, 19:14 | |
| John Siracusa | Apr 4, 19:36 | |
| Scott Ribe | Apr 4, 20:06 | |
| Scott Anguish | Apr 4, 20:31 | |
| Matt Neuburg | Apr 4, 20:45 | |
| Kevin Dixon | Apr 5, 19:41 | |
| Uli Kusterer | Apr 5, 20:06 |






Cocoa mail archive

