Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject: NeoOffice/J Type names
Hi,
I noticed that NeoOffice/J calls all of its file type names "NeoOffice/J Document".
So I looked at the names used by OO.o X11 and adapted NO/J's Info.plist accordingly.
The new file is not yet completely acceptable :
There's the sxg type missing.
csv and vor seem to be 2 different kind of types : csv is close to a spreadsheet while vor is a StarCalc spreadsheet template.
dif and dbf have 2 different names : Data Interchange Format and dBase, I'd be better to split this into 2 different file types.
jpg,gif, png, emf... are called NeoOffice/J Image, not sure that it's a good name. Maybe Image is better? BTW, I have no idea where this info would show up because NeoOffice doesn't "own" these file types. Another thought : the MIME types aren't enough, there's no svg MIME type although it's in the extension list.
what should we do with the non-native file fomat like wri, doc or ppt? I let the same type name as for the native equivalent file types.
Same thought than Images for .txt and .html : I don't know where this info would show up. I called them "Text" and "HTML" instead of "NeoOffice/J Text" or "NeoOffice/J HTML" which is not really accurate.
I hope to have some input from the other users. I think the main programmers shouldn't have to worry about this type of "user interface". We, the user group, can deal with that by ourselves with the agreement of the lead developers.
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:31 pm Post subject: Re: NeoOffice/J Type names
thulli wrote:
I noticed that NeoOffice/J calls all of its file type names "NeoOffice/J Document". So I looked at the names used by OO.o X11 and adapted NO/J's Info.plist accordingly.
Not a good, so thanks for adressing it. But we can be creative at this time, why limit to the OOo desginations? There's no reason to be overly simple with the names, since you can tell from the pretty new icons that something can be opened in NeoOffice. I look at the file description for more info on what it actually in it.
So here's (a sample of) my thoughts:
.sxg - NeoOffice master document
.csv - Comma-Separated Values data file
.png - Portable Network Graphics image (full names for the other media types that are not NeoOffice-specific)
.doc - Word text document
.wp(d) - Wordperfect text document
.sxw - NeoOffice text document
.xls - Excel spreadsheet (mutatis mutandis for Calc)
.ppt - Powerpoint presentation (mutatis mutandis for Impress)
.txt - Plain text document
.trf - Rich text document
.html - Hypertext document
There are more formats. The idea i'm trying to put across is that we either use the 'official name' in case of a standard format and the original app's name in case of a format the sort of originates from one application. And finish with one (preferably) or two word that accurately describes the type of file (like 'image').
I just call CSV a data file because it is used by spreadsheets but also by other programs (Outlook, for instance, and for databases) and it doesn't usually contain formulas.
As for MIME-types, if these can be defined - so much the better, but they make for very unfriendly reading.
thulli wrote:
I hope to have some input from the other users. I think the main programmers shouldn't have to worry about this type of "user interface". We, the user group, can deal with that by ourselves with the agreement of the lead developers.
What do you think of this?
I think this is a great idea. If we can make a definitive list, send it to Patrick and he just includes it in CVS, it saves him time which is better spent bug-hunting and doing other things that we know nothing about. As an active user, I just happy I can contribute without having to learn coding skills and Ed and Patrick have been really encouraging about this.
A couple of points (I'd never noticed the Finder kind info before!) from my work making icons for filetypes:
Some of the old StarOffice extensions (.vor I recall in particular) were used for several non-compatible document types, so I think either Patrick or I just picked one of the type-groups to assign it to for icon purposes.
ovvldc wrote:
.doc - Word text document
.wp(d) - Wordperfect text document
.sxw - NeoOffice text document
For .doc/WDBN/W8BN files, there's no need to say "text"...call it what it is, a (Microsoft) Word document. Word docs are only "text" docs The same for .wp/.wpd/.WP5/.WP6/WPPC/WPD3/WPD4 (unless there's a need to distinguish between the latter two [Mac] and the others [PC/UNIX]).
For all the OOo types, there are official names (see the open-save dialogues), and I think we should follow those (except perhaps the "1.0" part; the "2.0" versions of the document formats haven't arrived yet, so no need to distinguish): NeoOffice/J 1.0 Text Document, NeoOffice/J 1.0 Text Document Template, etc.
Otherwise, I think the Neo/J filepicker names follow Oscar's suggestions, so having them and the Finder in sync would be good
I'd like to see the name NeoOffice in each of the type name so I could see in a glance that this file will be opened in NeoOffice when double clicked.
Hmm, unless you're using 16x16 icons all over, it should be fairly apparent from the icon. At least on my Mac, which is a fairly running a fairly high resolution in a medium-size screen (=small pixels), the document icons are fairly distinguishable down to 24x24....
thulli wrote:
So instead of "Word document" it could be " NeoOffice/J Word document".
Hm, doesn't sound really good to me though. May be not a good idea
If it will open in Word, it should have a Word icon; if in Neo/J, a Neo/J icon. If Preview will open a PNG, it'll have a Preview icons; if Neo/J will open it, it'll have a Neo/J icon. And so forth. But this is where the current generic naming scheme (NeoOffice/J Document) would help
Joined: May 25, 2003 Posts: 4752 Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 11:52 pm Post subject:
A good thing to keep in mind with extensions is that in actuality we should try to get all of the extensions that can be handled properly into the Info.plist even if it's not worth the time to do icons for them. While we shouldn't set the "default applciation" flag for any of the non-standard OOo extensions (sxw, etc.) having the extensions in the plist means that NeoJ will show up in the list of applications that can handle documents of that type from Launch Services and double-clicking files of those extensions in Finder and dragging them over dock icon will be functional.
I haven't audited the list of extensions that OOo can handle, but I do know it's a heck of a lot just from the graphics formats alone. There's definitely a good reason for getting our info.plist up to speed.
There are a also a couple of anomalous formats that OOo can write but not read (chief among them SVG!) which, when saved by Neo/J, will end up with a Neo/J creator code (er, rather type code NO%F because of the mess of OOo code) and icon but Neo/J can't then read when double-clicked/DnD on the app!
The other missing kind/extension that comes to mind are the galleries (.sdg but also end up with .sdv--extension also claimed by QuickTime--and .thm counterparts), but I don't think any of these can be opened directly; they have to be moved to a certain location/added to the rest of your galleries. (The francophone project has a nice collection of maps in OOo gallery format--cart'ooo.)
So we do need to be vigilant when auditing our Info.plist
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
The same for .wp/.wpd/.WP5/.WP6/WPPC/WPD3/WPD4 (unless there's a need to distinguish between the latter two [Mac] and the others [PC/UNIX]).
