On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:36:41PM +0000, Alan Horkan wrote: > On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Manish Singh wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:30:03PM +0000, John Cupitt wrote: > > > > Of course, OpenDocument document structure (ZIP archive with multiply > > > > files inside) could be followed. > > > > > > Yes, this sounds much more sensible. > > > > As a concept, yes. Actually using ZIP is a stupid decision, > > It is a decision with some trade-offs. > > I'm surprised you would dimiss it as "stupid" without knowing more about > what problems they were trying to solve, obviously the smallest > compression wasn't their only priority. Why do you assume I'm calling it stupid because of compression issues? > One thing Zip has that other archive formats don't seem to have is an > internal filesystem, and some files inside the zip can be more > compressed than others making it a good container format. An index or > manifest can be left uncompressed, whereas other files within the archive > can be more heavily compressed if desired. One big failure is that the manifest is at the *end* of the file, which makes recovering data from partial files a lot harder. > > and I wonder what the rationale for using it was. > > There are more detailed explainations available (I read one very long and > detailed report on it when it was first added to OpenOffice) but if you > can find the list of requirements they had it should become clear. And this is what I asked about. Thanks for the handwave instead of an actual answer. > No need to say unpleasant things about OpenDocument. No need to post emails that don't answer the question I asked about, and instead waste my time with baseless speculation. -Yosh _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
