log in | register | forums
Show:
Go:
Forums
Username:

Password:

User accounts
Register new account
Forgot password
Forum stats
List of members
Search the forums

Advanced search
Recent discussions
- New Venue for the London 2022 Show (News:1)
- WROCC August Meeting Report - AMCOG games (News:)
- WROCC August Meeting - Tony Bartram and AMCOG games (News:)
- July 2022 News Summary (News:2)
- WROCC Newsletters Volume 40:1 (News:)
- Rougol July talk - Desktop... Engine, Paolo Fabio Zaino (News:)
- Paolo Fabio Zaino is talking at Rougol on Monday (News:)
- R-Comp Messenger Pro 9 reviewed (News:)
- WROCC July Meeting Report - Chris Hughes on Impact database (News:)
- 3D Pingu Game from Amcog Games Reviewed (News:)
Related articles
- Justin Fletcher's RISC OS Rambles
- RISC OS - the week in comments
- 32bit RISC OS Six announced
- Early August Update
- Wakey Wakey, it's show time again!
- A9 gets bluetooth
- RISC OS - 24 bits
- RISC OS Roadshow goes east
- Rounding Up February
- 50,000 shares, Iyonix Select and a Belated Happy Birthday
Latest postings RSS Feeds
RSS 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.9
Atom 0.3
Misc RDF | CDF
Site Search
 
Article archives
The Icon Bar: News and features: RISC OS Filetype Database
 

RISC OS Filetype Database

Posted by Andrew Poole on 14:31, 21/10/2002 | , ,
 
RISCOS Ltd, as part of the Select scheme have said that they "intend to introduce a method whereby a RISC OS Filetypes database can be interrogated to provide information about the features and availability of programs to handle specific RISC OS filetypes."

Obviously, they would like the database to be as complete as possible so they would like you to Email details of any filetypes you have registered and whether you are happy to have the details of the filetype published.

They would like details to be Emailed to developer@riscos.com with the following details

1. The Filetype Descriptive Name e.g Postscript
2. The Filetype Number e.g FF5
3. The Filetype Text String e.g PoScript
4. The Company/Person that registered the filetype
5. The date of acknowledgement of registration by Acorn
6. Your preferred Sprite design.
7. Brief description of the filetype
8. Identifying features of the filetype. i.e how can the file be identified if it has lost its RISC OS filetype stamp?
9. Web or other contact details as to where a user can obtain the necessary program to utilise the specific filetype.

Also, if you have a filetype registered but don't want the details publishing for whatever reason, they again, urge you to get in touch. They also say that their intention is to "acknowledge that a specific Filetype has been allocated to a Company, without giving a Filetype name or further details, unless confirmation has been received to the contrary."

Source: RISCOS Ltd
 

  RISC OS Filetype Database
  Phlamethrower (15:03 21/10/2002)
  moss (15:18 21/10/2002)
    ajv (15:55 21/10/2002)
      tribbles (16:08 21/10/2002)
        Chris Williams (16:43 21/10/2002)
          Phlamethrower (17:44 21/10/2002)
            Simo (18:31 21/10/2002)
              ajv (19:16 21/10/2002)
                ajv (19:20 21/10/2002)
                  mavhc (20:07 21/10/2002)
                    ajv (00:06 22/10/2002)
                      Chris Williams (01:15 22/10/2002)
                        Gerph (01:33 22/10/2002)
                          moss (08:54 22/10/2002)
                            tribbles (09:09 22/10/2002)
                              ajv (15:09 22/10/2002)
                                moss (15:27 22/10/2002)
                                  tribbles (15:56 22/10/2002)
                                    tribbles (15:57 22/10/2002)
                                      Phlamethrower (16:13 22/10/2002)
                                        gerph (20:23 22/10/2002)
                                          tribbles (11:24 24/10/2002)
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #91344, posted by Phlamethrower at 15:03, 21/10/2002
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15097
[grabs topic and swaps it with another one]

Still no word on them about RISC OS 5 then ;)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #91345, posted by moss at 15:18, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91344

Posts: 9348
Tee-hee :-)
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
ajv Message #91346, posted at 15:55, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91345
Unregistered user Um. Surely they'd be able to populate this database already (at least points 1-5) from the data they hold as part of the RISC OS Resource Allocation database? Especially as they appear to have been maintaining the latter since last August (2001).

Is this just a way of making work? It'd be easier if there was a preformatted template developers could email back, or even an online form, rather than a freeform email.

Or is this just a precursor to limiting resource allocations to Select subscribers, given this new database will be "part of the Select scheme"?

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Tribbeck Message #91347, posted by tribbles at 16:08, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91346
tribbles
Captain Helix

Posts: 929
[smug]I registered the XML filetype a few years ago... I can't remember if I also registered XSL, or DocType filetype.[/smug]

However, I agree that they should have all this information already - perhaps they are trying to weed out the registrations that were made but are not in use any more, in order to increase 'reserves'...

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Chris Williams Message #91348, posted at 16:43, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91347
Unregistered user They do have all this information but it's in a non-public database and allocations are handled on the understanding that the database manager (RISCOS Ltd.) keep the databases secret.

This is why they have to double check with developers, to make sure that what they believe is non-sensitive is allowed to be published in the public domain.

Chris (drobe.co.uk)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #91349, posted by Phlamethrower at 17:44, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91348
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15097
This may even be a precursor to some major file type/date upgrades, e.g. 8-byte time stamps and 4-byte file type codes; the old BBC 'load' and 'exec' addresses are a bit, well, old :|

However I'm not sure why they'd want to perform such an update now, so I'm probably wrong :)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Simo Message #91350, posted at 18:31, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91349
Unregistered user I'm getting really pissed at ROL - they're becoming as closed-source as Microsoft lately.

Don't they realise how dumb it is to have all the developer resources as Select only?

Screw 'em, if RO5 has a new version of !Paint, it'll be much better than 4.32 anyway ;o)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
ajv Message #91351, posted at 19:16, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91350
Unregistered user tribbles> So for example, if Computer Concepts (Xara Group) failed to re-register 0xD87 (DocData), do you think it would be prudent of ROSL to release it in order to "increase reserves"?

chris> If they need to double-check, then they have some contact details with each registration in order to carry out the checks. Simply assuming that it's OK to release the company/individual name and allocation if, for whatever reason, the company/individual in question hasn't seen the relevant press release, or didn't get round to emailing developer@riscos.com, is unacceptable.

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
ajv Message #91352, posted at 19:20, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91351
Unregistered user Another thought - does this mean that any new registrations will be processed subject to the registrant agreeing to make the details public?

... oh well, it was a good system while it lasted.

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Mark Scholes Message #91353, posted by mavhc at 20:07, 21/10/2002, in reply to message #91352
Member
Posts: 660
ajv: You assume that up to date contact details are available.

Why shouldn't we know who has what allocation? The only reason they are private is for people developing new apps. Registered filetypes are only needed for publically released software.

You then go on to speculate on what will happen in the future, and then say it's a bad thing and that doom is now covering the land.

Why wouldn't anyone want details of their filetype to be public?

It's a similar situation to MIME types I suppose

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
ajv Message #91354, posted at 00:06, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91353
Unregistered user mavhc> It's not so much filetype details being made public I object to, it's the disregard for the confidentiality of the original database that ROSL appear to have that irks me.

Companies/Individuals registered filetypes (and other allocations) in a confidential database. If ROSL had simply proposed putting together an additional public database, without any reference to the original confidential database, I would not have any problems. But they say their intent is, unless they hear otherwise, to publish the filetype and company details from the confidential database and move such information into the public domain. Which I find unacceptable.

The onus is on the original registrant to maintain the original confidentiality of their information, whereas the onus should actually be on ROSL to determine, for each and every confidential entry uniquely, whether publication is allowed or even desirable. It's like the difference between opt-in and opt-out mailing lists.

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Chris Williams Message #91355, posted at 01:15, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91354
Unregistered user ajv: Yes, very good. Let's drop the anti-ROL stance please, you look like an idiot otherwise.

If you read the press release it says they'll release just the filetype number if there's no contact, ie: "Filetype &E41 has been registered and therefore taken" This is so that people know which filetypes are taken and which are not. No further details are released. You have to mail them with up to date details to authorise a full disclosure. If you don't know the difference between a filetype number and a filetype name then please consult the PRMS.

Chris (drobe.co.uk)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Gerph Message #91356, posted at 01:33, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91355
Unregistered user tribbles> The registration for XML belongs to you (at least, you told me you had it :-) ); I registered the XSL type a little later for use with the documentation project and XML tools. I believe there's an XML-DTD type which you told me you'd used and is distributed with icon in the XML tools archive, too.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #91357, posted by moss at 08:54, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91356

Posts: 9348
From the press release:

"If you do not want any details of a Registered Filetype to be made public, then please let us know. Otherwise our intention is to acknowledge that a specific Filetype has been allocated to a Company, without giving a Filetype name or further details, unless confirmation has been received to the contrary."

I must say, I read "a Company" to mean *specific* companies, but I think I've read it wrong, and agree with Chris's interpretation.

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Tribbeck Message #91358, posted by tribbles at 09:09, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91357
tribbles
Captain Helix

Posts: 929
ajv> They probably wouldn't do it for "well-known" (commonly used) filetypes.

gerph> Okay - I didn't know what I'd registered ;-)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
ajv Message #91359, posted at 15:09, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91358
Unregistered user chris> Do you work hard to be so patronising, or does it just come naturally?

The press release is sufficiently vague that it would allow ROSL to release the name of company/individual who registered the filetype number (although it wouldn't cover the filetype name, as they explicitly mention). At least one other person in this thread originally read the release with this interpretation.

tribbles> So ROSL will decide what software is well-known or commonly used? What about software that's commonly used, but not in the public eye?

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
John Hoare Message #91360, posted by moss at 15:27, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91359

Posts: 9348
> So ROSL will decide what software is well-known or commonly used? What about software that's commonly used, but not in the public eye?

*looks interested*

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Tribbeck Message #91361, posted by tribbles at 15:56, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91360
tribbles
Captain Helix

Posts: 929
To be honest, I don't think they would reuse registered filetypes. I was just giving a reason why the information is being recollected.

Now, reuse filing system numbers, that's a different matter (since FWICR there's only 128 or 256 of them [can't remember if the top-bit is a flag or something])

However, I may be talking gibberish again ;-)

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Tribbeck Message #91362, posted by tribbles at 15:57, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91361
tribbles
Captain Helix

Posts: 929
Come to think of it, there's 256 of them [filing system handles] since my last allocated one was 160, I think.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jeffrey Lee Message #91363, posted by Phlamethrower at 16:13, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91362
PhlamethrowerHot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff

Posts: 15097
Upgrading RISC OS to use 32bit filing system identifiers shouldn't be too much trouble though. What they need to do is make sure that fairly large internal upgrades like that are all grouped together, so that programmers only have to modify their code once to support all the extended ranges.
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
gerph Message #91364, posted at 20:23, 22/10/2002, in reply to message #91363
Unregistered user Filing systems are already 'reused' in some cases because people couldn't be bothered to get their own allocations (q.v. IDEFS being used by a number of vendors).
  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 
Jason Tribbeck Message #91365, posted by tribbles at 11:24, 24/10/2002, in reply to message #91364
tribbles
Captain Helix

Posts: 929
phlame> It depends on how the data is structured. From memory, the FS number is a byte in a field in FileCore creation, so that would have to be extended.

Also, LongFiles keeps its FS numbers in a byte array, so that'll fall over ;-)

gerph> It's true that you'd probably not have different IDE filing systems in the machine, but if it's something that you are likely to have (such as a tape drive and a remote filesystem), then I'd really hope that the developers have done their work correctly...

  ^[ Log in to reply ]
 

The Icon Bar: News and features: RISC OS Filetype Database