I know and agree with the rationale, but it's really looking like a
premature move. I've got a context menu item that operates on general
file system objects, but not on volumes and not on a couple of
specific "special" folder types. In the process of converting to a
service for 10.6, I'd come to terms with the fact that there was no
way to suppress the appearance of the command for those special
folders. But I've got one question:
What genius decided that public.volume should be a child of
public.folder in the UTI tree, instead of a sibling (and a child of
directory) like package and bundle are?
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
