Since Jan has been using text/lilypond-source for the MIME type, maybe org.lilypond.lilypond-source is better? (Also, it matches the "public.c-plus-plus-source", etc that Apple's defined for other languages).
I should also mention that I marked it as inheriting from public.souce-code (which in turn inherits from public.plain-text, "text of unspecified encoding, with no markup"), which seemed reasonable.
--Ed
On May 12, 2005, at 4:38 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
"org.lilypond.lilypond-source" as the official UTI for LilyPond
I would say org.lilypond.lilypond-input, but I'm not sure. Jan?
On windows I have been using regtool set '/root/.ly/Content Type' 'text/lilypond-source' What's the difference between a mime typ and an UTI? There were once
I just glanced at the docs, but here are some differences
- UTIs form a hierarchy, (so UTI public.html conforms to UTI public.text)
- have space to link icons/descriptions/definition urls.
-- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
