Re: [office] SPEC: wrong mimetype in example

On Monday 05 July 2004 15:14, Daniel Vogelheim wrote:
> Hmm, I'm surprised they have a media-type at all... Some inquiring 
> presents: In OOo, if a directory has semantics of its own (such as a 
> directory containing a sub-document), then it received a suitable media 
> type (e.g. that for the sub-document-type). Other directories which are 
> just there for administrative or convenience reason (such as Pictures/) 
> have no media type, which is written as an empty attribute. I'm not sure 
> if it would make sense to introduce a general-purpose directory media-type.

Why not completely omit such "administrative" directories from the manifest then?
The picture itself is referenced there anyway, I just wonder what's the point
in adding an entry for the directory itself. I propose removing manifest entries
for such 'administrative' directories as Pictures and Thumbnails.

-- 
David Faure, , sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).