UTExportedTypeDeclarations

[AgentSmith]

Hi,

I have seen that the Info.plist file uses UTExportedTypeDeclarations to declare the UTIs for OpenOffice/NeoOffice files. This seems to be in contradiction to this site from apple.com: http://gemma.apple.com/documentation/Carbon/Conceptual/MDImporters/Concepts/WritingAnImp.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40001275-197081
If I understand this site correctly, NeoLight should be using UTImportedTypeDeclarations, since it's not directly associated with any application (it could be used with OpenOffice and/or NeoOffice). Only OpenOffice or NeoOffice should then use UTExportedTypeDeclarations.

I don't know if this actually has any effect on the system. But when reading about problems of OpenOffice/NeoOffice being installed parallely, I felt that maybe there might be a connection to this.

[OPENSTEP]

The way the importer's Info.plist is declared it provides UTI identifiers for OOo formatted file extensions in the Info.plist of the importer; we don't do UTI types in the application proper. According to the documentation, when adding in UTI types to a standalone importer the ExportedTypeDelarations is the correct key. See Listing 3 of the aforementioned guide for the example of adding UTI type declarations to an importer's Info.plist file.

ed

[AgentSmith]

Ah, I see. I was assuming that NeoOffice and OpenOffice would contain the UTI definitions as well.

Thanks for your answer.

[OPENSTEP]

I don't know what OOo is doing with their Info.plist but, in theory, if both applications provide the same UTI identifier for the extension there shouldn't be any issues. I really don't know what LaunchServices does if the same extension maps to multiple UTI types, but if it caches all the ones it sees then Spotlight indexing should be fine. The mapping of "open with" in the Finder and in LaunchServices is independent of UTI types, IIRC, and they're presently only required by Spotlight in order to search for an importer that can handle a specific file given the file's UTI type.

ed