Re: Need for a creator code?

FROM : Jean-Daniel Dupas
DATE : Wed Apr 02 21:46:48 2008

Le 2 avr. 08 à 20:56, Ken Thomases a écrit :
> On Apr 2, 2008, at 6:46 AM, Jean-Daniel Dupas wrote:

>>
>> Le 2 avr. 08 à 12:52, Keith Duncan a écrit :
>>

>>>> Oh. Looks like I'm off the hook. The UTI, I expect, is the bundle 
>>>> identifier, no?

>>>
>>> I don't think anyone actually answered this question for you. 
>>> Basically no, your bundle identifier is a URI.
>>>

>>
>> And to complete the answer, UTI are here to «replace» Type code, 
>> not Creator code.

>
> Except it doesn't.  As others have pointed out, you can tag a file 
> with a type code and/or you can tag it with a filename extension. 
> But you can't tag it with a UTI.  A UTI is _derived_from_ the things 
> it would replace.  Given a naked file, you can't come up with its 
> UTI (except perhaps in rare cases by file magic).
>
> Thus we still need filename extensions and, I think, type codes. 
> Which is a bit of a shame.


I know, I'm one of the first that point this problem in the 
discussion, that why I put quote (or chevrons as you prefere) around 
“replace” ;-)
Anyway, even if it was possible to attach an UTI to a file, you would 
be force to continue to use (nasty old fashioned) extensions for 
compatibility with other OS.
Do not forget that OS X reintroduce extensions for this purpose.