[odf-discuss] .ott file format

[Thomas Zander]

On Wednesday 21 February 2007 11:35, Damon Anderson wrote:
> I agree that for corporate use OOo has a lot of failings (which I will not
>   enumerate here) but addressing the file extension point... doesn't it
> exactly fulfill the function you mention, e.g. since it really isn't a
> different file type, only a naming convention to define it as a template
> how is the folder or document registering any different?

Its different because it doesn't abuse the file-extention concept used by 
Windows to equal a file-type.
In other words; for windows users the solution of using .ott has disadvantages 
that other applications suddenly can't recognize perfectly valid .odt files 
anymore.  The solution I wrote above doesn't have that (pretty big) 
disadvantage.

> Further if I do it 
> by a folder am I not now doing it by Filesystem? If I do it by
> "registering" the document don't I again fall into the issue of having to
> configure every user's application? Has this some how been generalized in
> KOffice?

This is practically speaking a different issue.  By accepting that the 
solution of using .ott limits interoperability we have taken the first step. 
The second step is to look for a different solution that will not create 
lock-in like the .ott "fileformat" does.

At this point in time there is no perfect solution. KOffice2 has on its list 
of future-features something you'll find very useful.  But since it is in the 
design-stage I won't bore you with it :)
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070221/b7fb1be4/attachment-0001.pgp