Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Thanks for the expansion...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Thanks for the expansion...
Authored by: babbage on Dec 06, '01 07:43:18PM
Thanks, glad it helped. If I can be a pushy jerk now, it might help to rephrase the first paragraph slightly, You've got:
On the Mac, one piece of metadata is the type and creator information that is stored with each file on the system. These are the bits that tell the Mac which application should open which file, regardless of the file's name or extension. Metadata has long provided an advantage over Windows - no need for filename extensions. The downside, however, is that Mac files are more difficult to exchange with PC users, and lose their metata in the transition. With the release of OS X, Apple has headed away from metadata as the sole means of identifying a file, and has added file extensions. While improving cross-platform compatability, this change has been the source of tremendous debate among Mac users -- do filename extensions mean the end of metadata on the Mac?

It might read better as something like this:

On the Mac, metadata such as the type and creator codes are stored with each file on the system in resource forks. These tell the Mac which application should open which file, regardless of the file's name or extension. Resource fork based metadata has long provided an advantage over Windows - no need for filename extensions, and many other subtle benefits besides. The downside, however, is that Mac files are more difficult to exchange with PC users, and lose most metadata in the transition. With the release of OS X, Apple has headed away from resource forks as the primary means of identifying a file, and has encouraged the adoption of file extensions. While improving cross-platform compatability, this change has been the source of tremendous debate among Mac users -- do filename extensions mean the end of metadata on the Mac?

The important changes being that [a] Apple isn't asking to get rid of metadata, they're getting rid of their time-tested but non-portable mechanism for storing it, on grounds that it's no fun being a little island of sanity in a mad, crude, networked & Windows dominated world, that [b] file name extensions existed before, but were optional -- Photoshop EPS, just to pick one -- and are now being required and the older, more robust & dynamic standard is being abandoned.

The concern is that this is a false dilemma, and that the Mac can easily do both. For network portability (and, ironically, compatibility with some of the BSD tools that come with OSX), extensions should be preferred to resource forks. But for the most part, external storage of metadata is the way forward. Windows has had support for it, if not widespread use of it, for years now, and that has only been expanded with WinXP. With OSX, Apple wants to step back towards where Windows was years ago even as Microsoft is finally learning the lessons Apple has been teaching for decades now. That is why this is important, and why people should sign the petition & get Apple not to do this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks for the expansion...
Authored by: dahlenu on Dec 08, '01 06:16:45PM

It seems you think that type and creator codes are stored in the resource fork. It is not.

Think of type/creator as on the same level as owner/group/permissions in UFS.

Again, since this is the most mis-understood thing about meta-data on the Mac: type and creator codes have nothing to do with the resource fork, and they do not require multi-forked files.



[ Reply to This | # ]