Re: [OT] Activity Monitor has no creator?
Re: [OT] Activity Monitor has no creator?
- Subject: Re: [OT] Activity Monitor has no creator?
- From: Greg Guerin <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:51:01 -0700
Laurence Harris wrote:
>> [Chris Espinosa quote]:
>> I'm not aware of any utility provided by the Creator Type in
>> applications that don't have documents.
>
>The wording of this sentence seems a bit off. However, do all of
>these have documents?
>
>Audio MIDI Setup.app
>Adobe Updater.app
>SuperDrive Update 2.1.app
>Network Utility.app
>System Profiler.app
>DigitalColor Meter.app
>ColorSync Utility.app
>Disk Utility.app
>iSight Updater 1.0.2.app
>Keychain Access.app
>ODBC Administrator.app
>Printer Setup Utility.app
>Terminal.app
>Installer.app
No, not all of them. Installer does, though it doesn't create them for itself.
You seem to be arguing from this faulty assumption: the presence of a
Creator Type implies that the app has documents. That was not Chris's
statement, nor is it a logical consequence of his statement.
Taken at face value, Chris's assertion is perfectly clear:
There is no utility provided by the Creator Type
in applications that don't have documents. [1]
This is not at all the same as:
Only apps with documents MUST or SHOULD [2] have Creator Types.
Nor is it the same as:
Apps without documents MUST NOT have Creator Types.
If there is no utility for Creator Type in apps that don't have documents,
and supposing there is no penalty for having a Creator Type in such apps,
then logically speaking, Creator Type is optional but has no utility.
In short, there is neither harm nor benefit to the app: Anything not
expressly forbidden is allowed. You seem to be arguing from the opposite
premise: anything not expressly allowed is forbidden. I could easily be
wrong, but I don't think the guidelines can be interpreted quite that
narrowly.
[1] Chris also qualified his assertion with "I'm not aware of ...", so it's
possible there *is* some harm or benefit to the app, but he's not aware of
it. Again, this should be perfectly clear.
[2] Per RFC 2119: <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt>
>Where do the guidelines state that only document-based applications
>should have creator signatures?
Suppose the guidelines never make that statement. The above analysis would
still hold, however. That is, an application that has no documents neither
benefits from nor is harmed by the presence (or absence) of a unique
creator signature.
>FWIW, Backup.app does have documents and creator signature '????'.
Does Backup.app ever use a creator signature for anything? If Backup.app
never writes creator signatures on its documents, and never uses the
signature in any other situation, then there is no logical reason for it to
have a signature, because that signature will never be used. And if the
signature is never used, then Backup.app can neither be harmed by nor
benefit from the absence of a unique signature.
If you believe the presence or absence of creator signatures in these
circumstances is a significant problem, or if you have evidence that their
presence or absence is actively causing harm, then that sounds like
sufficient reason to file a bug report.
-- GG
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden