Mimemap entries for Office x formats

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

Does anyone have mimemap entries for things like .xlsx and .pptx files?
I get all my email sent to my Iyonix which sometimes includes such
attachments. It would be useful if when I moved them to a Windows
machine to open them I did not have to rename them to get the filetype
correct.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Hemmings Southport

rob...@rgvk.co.uk

[NedA]

In article <528da2ba...@rgvk.co.uk>,

Rob Hemmings (news2) <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:
> Does anyone have mimemap entries for things like .xlsx and
> .pptx files? I get all my email sent to my Iyonix which
> sometimes includes such attachments. It would be useful if
> when I moved them to a Windows machine to open them I did
> not have to rename them to get the filetype correct.

If you do get any suggestions Rob then can you please pass
them to Tim who is maintaining a very useful resource at
http://www.timil.com/riscos/mimemap
which could replace your existing
!Boot.Resources.!Internet.files.MimeMap


Theres notes at the bottom of the page.

--
besters
Ned

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <528db7a...@ned.uk.invalid>,

Thanks very much for the suggestion, I'm already using Tim's very useful
mimemap file but I'm certainly happy to pass on any suggestions to him.

[Alex Macfarlane Smith]

On 10/05/2012 19:00, Rob Hemmings (news2) wrote:
> In article<528db7a...@ned.uk.invalid>,
> NedA<ne...@ned.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> In article<528da2ba...@rgvk.co.uk>,
>> Rob Hemmings (news2)<rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Does anyone have mimemap entries for things like .xlsx and
>>> .pptx files? I get all my email sent to my Iyonix which
>>> sometimes includes such attachments. It would be useful if
>>> when I moved them to a Windows machine to open them I did
>>> not have to rename them to get the filetype correct.
>
>> If you do get any suggestions Rob then can you please pass
>> them to Tim who is maintaining a very useful resource at
>> http://www.timil.com/riscos/mimemap
>> which could replace your existing
>> !Boot.Resources.!Internet.files.MimeMap
>
>
>> Theres notes at the bottom of the page.
>
> Thanks very much for the suggestion, I'm already using Tim's very useful
> mimemap file but I'm certainly happy to pass on any suggestions to him.
>

In terms of MIME types:

.xlsx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet

.xltx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.template

.ppsx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.slideshow

.pptx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation

.docx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

.dotx
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.template


But I don't know if any of those have officially allocated filetypes on
RISC OS.

Alex.

[spampling]

In article <4fac0fe8$0$295$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,

Alex Macfarlane Smith <nos...@archifishal.co.uk> wrote:


> In terms of MIME types:

> .xlsx
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet

> .xltx
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.template

> .ppsx
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.slideshow

> .pptx
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation

> .docx
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document

> .dotx
> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.template


> But I don't know if any of those have officially allocated filetypes on
> RISC OS.

I'm not sure there is currently a need to filetype them really.
Although the official label is "openxml" they are actually a bastardised
xml only used by microsoft.
RISC OS has no available converters.

To the OP I would suggest that you tell the senders that you don't have
that version of MS Office. People are used to dealing with others who only
have the older office formats that can't deal with the new formats or
convert them.

--

Steve Pampling

[Martin Wuerthner]

In message <528e108f44...@btinternet.com>

spampling <spam....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> In article <4fac0fe8$0$295$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
> Alex Macfarlane Smith <nos...@archifishal.co.uk> wrote:

>> In terms of MIME types:

>> [...]
>> .docx
>> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
>> [...]

>> But I don't know if any of those have officially allocated filetypes on
>> RISC OS.

.docx is MSWordX (&A7E)

> I'm not sure there is currently a need to filetype them really.
> Although the official label is "openxml" they are actually a bastardised
> xml only used by microsoft.

Not sure what you mean by "bastardised". These are publicly documented
standardised XML-based file formats.

> RISC OS has no available converters.

Easi/TechWriter 9.0 reads .docx files.

--
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
RISC OS Software for Design, Printing and Publishing
---------------------------------------------------------------------

[Chris Evans]

In article <528e108f44...@btinternet.com>, spampling

<URL:mailto:spam....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> To the OP I would suggest that you tell the senders that you don't have
> that version of MS Office. People are used to dealing with others who only
> have the older office formats that can't deal with the new formats or
> convert them.
>

A few "People are used to dealing with others who only have the older office
formats"

Fewer are willing to do anything about it.

I've been getting Solicitors letters in my role of Trustee, they insist on
sending them in docx format, I'd expect only a minority of Joe Public would
already have software installed that would read docx, and many would not know
about MS's Word Viewer.
I'm paying for this poor service, because of this and other silliness on
their part I do not recommend Meade King.



Chris Evans

--
CJE Micro's / 4D 'RISC OS Specialists'
Telephone: 01903 523222 Fax: 01903 523679
ch...@cjemicros.co.uk http://www.cjemicros.co.uk/
78 Brighton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 2EN
The most beautiful thing anyone can wear, is a smile!

[Rick Murray]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:48:24 +0100, Chris Evans
<ch...@cjemicros.co.uk> wrote:

> I've been getting Solicitors letters in my role of Trustee, they
insist on
> sending them in docx format, I'd expect only a minority of Joe
Public

Seznd a polite letter saying that as they have continually failed to
provide communications in a legible format despite this having been
brought to their attention...
...further payment will be withheld until such time as the
communications become legible.

That might concentrate their minds on the two extra mouse clicks
necessary in the "save" dialog(ue) [format, pick a type, ie RTF or
Word97].


(IANAL)


Best wishes,

Rick.

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <528da2ba...@rgvk.co.uk>,
Rob Hemmings (news2) <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

> Does anyone have mimemap entries for things like .xlsx and .pptx files?
> I get all my email sent to my Iyonix which sometimes includes such
> attachments. It would be useful if when I moved them to a Windows
> machine to open them I did not have to rename them to get the filetype
> correct.

In a related point, I'm using Tim Hill's mimemap file which does include
an entry for .docx format files. This seems to enable me to see such
files correctly typed via Lanman98 but when they arrive via Hermes and
Pluto the attachments are typed as text files. Does anyone know why that
is happening?

I think the ones I've noticed are from Hotmail users so is it another Hotmail
failing?

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <2ce2198e...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
<spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

<Snip>

> Easi/TechWriter 9.0 reads .docx files.

Yes, I have the latest version of Techwriter for that purpose - it is
very useful.

[Alan Griffin]

In article <528e3594...@rgvk.co.uk>,

Rob Hemmings (news2) <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <2ce2198e...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
> <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

> <Snip>

> > Easi/TechWriter 9.0 reads .docx files.

> Yes, I have the latest version of Techwriter for that purpose - it is
> very useful.

Ditto!
Alan

[spampling]

In article <2ce2198e...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
<spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

> In message <528e108f44...@btinternet.com> spampling
> <spam....@btinternet.com> wrote:

> > In article <4fac0fe8$0$295$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>, Alex Macfarlane
> > Smith <nos...@archifishal.co.uk> wrote:

> >> In terms of MIME types:

> >> [...] .docx
> >> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
> >> [...] But I don't know if any of those have officially allocated
> >> filetypes on RISC OS.

> .docx is MSWordX (&A7E)

> > I'm not sure there is currently a need to filetype them really.
> > Although the official label is "openxml" they are actually a
> > bastardised xml only used by microsoft.

> Not sure what you mean by "bastardised". These are publicly documented
> standardised XML-based file formats.

MS modified them and parts are not fully documented - loads of stories out
there with people complaining about that not so minor detail.

> > RISC OS has no available converters.

> Easi/TechWriter 9.0 reads .docx files.

Nice.

and the converters for the other application outputs?

--

Steve Pampling

[Matthew Phillips]

In message <528e346c...@rgvk.co.uk>

on 11 May 2012 Rob Hemmings (news2) wrote:

> In a related point, I'm using Tim Hill's mimemap file which does include an
> entry for .docx format files. This seems to enable me to see such files
> correctly typed via Lanman98 but when they arrive via Hermes and Pluto the
> attachments are typed as text files. Does anyone know why that is
> happening?
>
> I think the ones I've noticed are from Hotmail users so is it another
> Hotmail failing?

It could be a problem at either end. You need to open the raw e-mail and
look at the Content-Type declaration for the attachment. If it's text/plain
then the problem is at the other end. If it's the correct MIME-type for
docx, then the problem is at your end.

--
Matthew Phillips
Durham

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <80a5968e5...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>, Matthew

Thanks Matthew. The final part of the header for the email is as below
so I guess that means the problem is with Hotmail. Typical!


X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - hotmail.com

--_04831da4-3479-4472-abf7-f0813e6c499d_
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="_fb9a94c4-9f52-452b-8af1-5600293f00a0_"

--_fb9a94c4-9f52-452b-8af1-5600293f00a0_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

[Matthew Phillips]

In message <528ea09a...@rgvk.co.uk>

No, you need to look further down. The structure of the whole message would
typically be as follows:

1. Main headers of e-mail, which end with a blank line (in your example,
after the X-AntiAbuse line. In a message with an attachment one of the main
headers will be a line like:

Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01.40"

(the boundary can be anything that is not going to appear in the body of the
message).


2. You would then get the body of the e-mail message, indicated by a line
matching the boundary above, but with two hyphens preceding. The boundary
marker is followed by header lines describing that chunk. In your example,
it is of content type "multipart/alternative". This is usually found with an
email where it has been sent in two formats, for example plain text and HTML.
So what you have above is a container within a container: the
multipart/alternative indicates that we have two or more chunks which contain
the same content, and the e-mail client is supposed to display the richest
one it can. There is another boundery marker, for the alternative
formats of the message. Then you get the declaration of the first, with
content type text/plain.

3. Further down you would get any other alternative formats. I would expect
to find a section of text/html containing the message text in HTML.

4. Eventually you would reach the top-level boundary marker again (the one
ending "99d_" in your case) and the first file attachment would be declared.
It is the headers immediately after that which are relevant. The
content-type would tell you what MIME type had been declared, and the content
disposition would declare it to be an attachment and possibly give a
filename. Here is an example from a message in my inbox:

------=_NextPart_001_0007_01CD2A3C.67CB6640--

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CD2A3C.67CB6640
Content-Type: application/msword;
name="News-sheet 6 May 2012.doc"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename="News-sheet 6 May 2012.doc"

0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAjAAAAAAAAAAA
EAAAigAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAI8AAACNAAAA////////////////////////////////////////
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
....

Word documents and other binary formats like zip files will usually be
encoded for transfer as base64, which looks like the example above, that is,
lots of lines all the same length containing uooer and lower case letters,
digits, plus and slash.

So if you locate the headers pertaining to the attachment, you will be able
to find out whether the problem is at your end or HotMail's.

--
Matthew Phillips
Durham

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <4043e18e5...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>,

Matthew Phillips <spam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <528ea09a...@rgvk.co.uk>
> on 12 May 2012 Rob Hemmings (news2) wrote:

> > In article <80a5968e5...@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>, Matthew
> > Phillips <spam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > In message <528e346c...@rgvk.co.uk>
> > > on 11 May 2012 Rob Hemmings (news2) wrote:
> >
> > > > In a related point, I'm using Tim Hill's mimemap file which does
> > > > include an entry for .docx format files. This seems to enable me
> > > > to see such files correctly typed via Lanman98 but when they
> > > > arrive via Hermes and Pluto the attachments are typed as text
> > > > files. Does anyone know why that is happening?
> > > >
> > > > I think the ones I've noticed are from Hotmail users so is it
> > > > another Hotmail failing?
> >
> > > It could be a problem at either end. You need to open the raw
> > > e-mail and look at the Content-Type declaration for the attachment.
> > > If it's text/plain then the problem is at the other end. If it's
> > > the correct MIME-type for docx, then the problem is at your end.
> >

<Snip>

> No, you need to look further down. The structure of the whole message
> would typically be as follows:

<Snip - very useful explanation - thanks>

Thanks for that explanation. I've now found the following which I think
does make it look as though the information coming from Hotmail is
correct?


--_fb9a94c4-9f52-452b-8af1-5600293f00a0_--

--_04831da4-3479-4472-abf7-f0813e6c499d_

Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Content-Type:
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64

The corresponding entry from my mimemap file is:

application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
MSWordX a7e .docx

(where the spaces are actually tabs - i.e. shown as 09 in square brackets)

However, Pluto still shows the file as type Text. Can anyone suggest
what is going wrong and/or should I raise this on the Pluto mailing list
instead?

[druck]

On 11/05/2012 09:29, Martin Wuerthner wrote:
> In message<528e108f44...@btinternet.com>
> spampling<spam....@btinternet.com> wrote:

>> I'm not sure there is currently a need to filetype them really.
>> Although the official label is "openxml" they are actually a bastardised
>> xml only used by microsoft.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "bastardised". These are publicly documented
> standardised XML-based file formats.

Publicly documented; yes, a implementable standard; no.

You can fly a fully loaded 747 through the holes in the 6,000 pages of
the specification. Things like a muddle of different date systems
bearing no releationship to anything else on the planet, references to
proprietary behaviour with tags like footnoteLayoutLikeWW8 or
useWord2002TableStyleRules, etc, etc.

---druck

[spampling]

In article <jorns0$8c1$1...@dont-email.me>,

That saved me a lot of typing.

> ---druck

--

Steve Pampling

[Tim Hill]

In article <528f2075...@rgvk.co.uk>, Rob Hemmings (news2)

<rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:
> However, Pluto still shows the file as type Text. Can anyone suggest
> what is going wrong and/or should I raise this on the Pluto mailing
> list instead?

Has EW already been 'seen' by the filer and therefore defined the docx
filetype before the email is fetched?

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

... "If music be the food of love, play on" Twelfth N, Act i, Sc.1

[Martin Wuerthner]

In message <529037...@invalid.org.uk>

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> In article <528f2075...@rgvk.co.uk>, Rob Hemmings (news2)
> <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:
>> However, Pluto still shows the file as type Text. Can anyone suggest
>> what is going wrong and/or should I raise this on the Pluto mailing
>> list instead?

> Has EW already been 'seen' by the filer and therefore defined the docx
> filetype before the email is fetched?

That should not make any difference. The MimeMap contains the mapping
from the MIME type to the RISC OS type. This mechanism does not rely
on the application defining the type.

Maybe Pluto does not like long MIME type names? The one for .docx has
71 characters, far more than any other in my MimeMap.

[Tim Hill]

In article <34ba3990...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
<spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

[Snip]

> That should not make any difference. The MimeMap contains the mapping
> from the MIME type to the RISC OS type. This mechanism does not rely
> on the application defining the type.

I was grasping at straws.

> Maybe Pluto does not like long MIME type names? The one for .docx has
> 71 characters, far more than any other in my MimeMap.

That wouldn't surprise me, given its other hard-wired limitations.

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

... "They that thrive well take counsel of their friends" Venus & Adonis

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <52903a...@invalid.org.uk>,

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <34ba3990...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
> <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

> [Snip]

> > That should not make any difference. The MimeMap contains the mapping
> > from the MIME type to the RISC OS type. This mechanism does not rely
> > on the application defining the type.

> I was grasping at straws.

> > Maybe Pluto does not like long MIME type names? The one for .docx has
> > 71 characters, far more than any other in my MimeMap.

> That wouldn't surprise me, given its other hard-wired limitations.

Interesting - that could well be the problem although I have just noticed
that there is a difference in attachments received using your (Tim's)
mimemap compared with the one that I had before! With my previous one
the .docx attachments are shown as with a file type of Data but with your
mimemap they are shown with a type of Text. This seems rather strange!

[Stuart]

In article <5291fa16...@rgvk.co.uk>,

Rob Hemmings (news2) <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

> Interesting - that could well be the problem although I have just noticed
> that there is a difference in attachments received using your (Tim's)
> mimemap compared with the one that I had before! With my previous one
> the .docx attachments are shown as with a file type of Data but with your
> mimemap they are shown with a type of Text. This seems rather strange!

Hmmm, I'm sure the last time I recieved a .docx it showed up correctly and
double-clicking on the attachment loaded Techwriter and displayed it.

However, I don't currently have one to try, since the church office were
persuaded to send out all notices etc as .pdf

--
Stuart Winsor

Only plain text for emails
http://www.asciiribbon.org

[Alan Griffin]

In article <5292368d...@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart

<Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5291fa16...@rgvk.co.uk>, Rob Hemmings (news2)
> <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:
> > Interesting - that could well be the problem although I have just
> > noticed that there is a difference in attachments received using
> > your (Tim's) mimemap compared with the one that I had before! With
> > my previous one the .docx attachments are shown as with a file type
> > of Data but with your mimemap they are shown with a type of Text.
> > This seems rather strange!

> Hmmm, I'm sure the last time I received a .docx it showed up

> correctly and double-clicking on the attachment loaded Techwriter and
> displayed it.

On my RISC PC .docx documents show up as "data".
If I double click on them I get a "message from Pluto" saying: "Can't
run this filetype". (This is even with the Techwriter icon on the
iconbar.)

If I drag it from the e-mail on to the TechWriter icon I get the
"Message from Techwriter": "Could not open file because: TechWriter
cannot open this type of file."

If I drag it to the RAM Disc and double click on it I get an error
message saying "An application that loads a file of this type has not
been found by the Filer. Open an application display containing the
required application and try again."

However, if I drag it from the RAM Disc on to the TechWriter icon, it
opens up and I can read it.

Can anyone explain?

Alan Griffin

[Martin Wuerthner]

In message <5291fa16...@rgvk.co.uk>

"Rob Hemmings (news2)" <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <52903a...@invalid.org.uk>,
> Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <34ba3990...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
>> <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

>> [Snip]

>>> That should not make any difference. The MimeMap contains the mapping
>>> from the MIME type to the RISC OS type. This mechanism does not rely
>>> on the application defining the type.

>> I was grasping at straws.

>>> Maybe Pluto does not like long MIME type names? The one for .docx has
>>> 71 characters, far more than any other in my MimeMap.

>> That wouldn't surprise me, given its other hard-wired limitations.

> Interesting - that could well be the problem although I have just noticed
> that there is a difference in attachments received using your (Tim's)
> mimemap compared with the one that I had before! With my previous one
> the .docx attachments are shown as with a file type of Data but with your
> mimemap they are shown with a type of Text. This seems rather strange!

Not at all. It all boils down to how unknown Mime types are mapped.

The original MimeMap maps all unknown types to Data.
Tim Hill's MimeMap maps all unknown type to Text.

So, that confirms that the type of the given files is not found in
your MimeMap. That is exactly what you would expect happen if Pluto
truncated the Mime type to a fixed length.

[Martin Wuerthner]

In message <52923e...@argonet.co.uk>

Alan Griffin <a...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <5292368d...@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
> <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <5291fa16...@rgvk.co.uk>, Rob Hemmings (news2)
>> <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Interesting - that could well be the problem although I have just
>>> noticed that there is a difference in attachments received using
>>> your (Tim's) mimemap compared with the one that I had before! With
>>> my previous one the .docx attachments are shown as with a file type
>>> of Data but with your mimemap they are shown with a type of Text.
>>> This seems rather strange!

>> Hmmm, I'm sure the last time I received a .docx it showed up
>> correctly and double-clicking on the attachment loaded Techwriter and
>> displayed it.

> On my RISC PC .docx documents show up as "data".

Yes, that is what happens with the default MimeMap.

> If I double click on them I get a "message from Pluto" saying: "Can't
> run this filetype". (This is even with the Techwriter icon on the
> iconbar.)

> If I drag it from the e-mail on to the TechWriter icon I get the
> "Message from Techwriter": "Could not open file because: TechWriter
> cannot open this type of file."

> If I drag it to the RAM Disc and double click on it I get an error
> message saying "An application that loads a file of this type has not
> been found by the Filer. Open an application display containing the
> required application and try again."

> However, if I drag it from the RAM Disc on to the TechWriter icon, it
> opens up and I can read it.

> Can anyone explain?

There is not much to explain here. That is exactly the behaviour you
would expect from a file you receive via e-mail that is considered a
Data file by Pluto. You cannot run a Data file from within Pluto
because no application is associated with it, TechWriter cannot load
data files directly from other applications. Once saved to disc
double-clicking a Data file shows the message you reported above
because it has no associated application.

The only slightly surprising thing is that you can drag it to
TechWriter and it loads it. TechWriter would not have to do that, it
could just as well reject the file, but that is some extra convenience
I added: When you drag a file from the Filer to TechWriter, it does
some extra checks and accepts wrongly typed files in some cases, e.g.,
Data files with a name ending in "/docx" because I anticipated that
this situation would frequently arise.

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <a6e64d92...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner

That is a very useful explanation - thanks. i'll mention it on the Pluto
mailing just in case...

[Tim Hill]

In article <a6e64d92...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
<spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:

[Snip]

> Tim Hill's MimeMap
> maps all unknown type to Text.

Anyone is free to change that (back) in their own copy.

It's the final entry */* which precedes the 'HISTORY'.

> So, that confirms that the type of the given files is not found in
> your MimeMap. That is exactly what you would expect happen if Pluto
> truncated the Mime type to a fixed length.

Hmm. I wonder: is it possible to discover what that truncated length is
and I may be able to include fudged entries for Pluto.

--
Tim Hill
..............................................................
www.timil.com


... "And God befriend us, as our cause is just" Henry IV, Act v, Sc.1

[Evan Clark]

In article <52926b...@invalid.org.uk>,

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> Hmm. I wonder: is it possible to discover what that truncated
> length is and I may be able to include fudged entries for Pluto.

Pluto seems unable to set the correct filetype correctly when the
MIME type in an incoming message is greater than 59 characters.

Outgoing messages don't seem to be subject to that limit.

Evan.

[Alan Griffin]

In article <238c4e92...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner

<spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> The only slightly surprising thing is that you can drag it to
> TechWriter and it loads it. TechWriter would not have to do that, it
> could just as well reject the file, but that is some extra
> convenience I added: When you drag a file from the Filer to
> TechWriter, it does some extra checks and accepts wrongly typed
> files in some cases, e.g., Data files with a name ending in "/docx"
> because I anticipated that this situation would frequently arise.

Thank you Martin.
It is brilliant to be able to read docx files!

Alan

[Tim Hill]

In article <52927b8...@ejclark.force9.co.uk>, Evan Clark

If only I had read that before conducting my own experiments!

I repeat here what I have posted to the PlutoUsers mailing list:

My experiments show there seems to be a 59 character limit to the
mimetype in this version of Pluto so you can add this 'cockney' entry
instead of or before the correct version in your mimemap file:

application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessin[tab]MSWordX[tab]a7e[tab].docx

(That's all on ONE line)

This fudge ensures incoming .docx attachments to Pluto are handled
correctly, i.e. given the MSWordX filetype.

www.timil.com/riscos/mimemap now has a commented-out option for Pluto
users. (Load the file into an editor and search for 'MSWordX' or 'Pluto'.

HOWEVER, it also means that files sent are given the WRONG mimetype. BUT
it seems that windows, at least, uses the file extension, not the
mimetype, to identify the file. If you are in the habit of sending files
to Android (or Mac or Linux given their heritage?) you may not want to do
this as even though the files may have .docx, the mangled mimetype may
render files unrenderable.

[snip - EW/TW can 'open' Data typed .docx files dropped on it]

If users are happy with incoming (untyped) files being typed 'Data' by
default, it is probably best to change/leave the catch-all entry to
achieve this:

*/*[tab]Data[Tab]ffd[Tab]*



T

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

... "What is best, that best I wish in thee" Troilus & C, Act ii, Sc.2

[Martin Wuerthner]

In message <5292eb...@invalid.org.uk>

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:

> My experiments show there seems to be a 59 character limit to the
> mimetype in this version of Pluto so you can add this 'cockney' entry
> instead of or before the correct version in your mimemap file:

> application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessin[tab]MSWord
> X[tab]a7e[tab].docx

> (That's all on ONE line)

> This fudge ensures incoming .docx attachments to Pluto are handled
> correctly, i.e. given the MSWordX filetype.

> www.timil.com/riscos/mimemap now has a commented-out option for Pluto
> users. (Load the file into an editor and search for 'MSWordX' or 'Pluto'.

> HOWEVER, it also means that files sent are given the WRONG mimetype.

If that is really the case, then I strongly discourage anyone from
using this workaround.

However, I wonder why that would have to be the case. If you have the
correct entry first and then the truncated entry after it, then
outgoing messages should get the correct full name and it should still
work around the Pluto bug. Have you tried that?

[Evan Clark]

In article <c4084e93...@bach.planiverse.com>,

Martin Wuerthner <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> If you have the correct entry first and then the truncated entry
> after it, then outgoing messages should get the correct full name
> and it should still work around the Pluto bug. Have you tried that?

That does indeed work correctly for outgoing and incoming messages.

Once again Martin's impeccable logic and analysis of the situation
wins the day!

Many thanks,

Evan.

[Tim Hill]

In article <5293531...@ejclark.force9.co.uk>, Evan Clark

Yes, brilliant as always, Martin. Noted. Thanks.

I'm still at a loss to understand why someone in PlutoUsers is not having
this problem. :-/

--
from Tim Hill who welcomes incoming email to tim at timil dot com.
* Share in a better energy supplier: http://tjrh.eu/coopnrg
* Share in cheaper ethical telecoms: http://tjrh.eu/phone
* Have a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/

... "He that filches from me my good name, robs me of that which not enriches him, but makes me poor indeed" Othello, Act iii, Sc.3

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <52936f...@invalid.org.uk>,

Tim Hill <t...@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <5293531...@ejclark.force9.co.uk>, Evan Clark
> <ne...@ejclark.force9.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <c4084e93...@bach.planiverse.com>, Martin Wuerthner
> > <spam...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> > > If you have the correct entry first and then the truncated entry
> > > after it, then outgoing messages should get the correct full name
> > > and it should still work around the Pluto bug. Have you tried that?

> > That does indeed work correctly for outgoing and incoming messages.

> > Once again Martin's impeccable logic and analysis of the situation
> > wins the day!

> > Many thanks,

> Yes, brilliant as always, Martin. Noted. Thanks.

> I'm still at a loss to understand why someone in PlutoUsers is not
> having this problem. :-/

Well I think I have now solved that - I'm posting it here as I have
trouble posting to the Pluto users mail list. I just went back to my
original mimemap file in which I had added a line for .docx files with
the different components separated by tabs (i.e. hex 09) and with this
Pluto did not show the correct file type for .docx files. However, when
I replaced the tabs with spaces (as in John Harrison's) mimemap file then
Pluto identified the file type correctly.

Very strange!

[Rob Hemmings (news2)]

In article <52938aba...@rgvk.co.uk>,

Rob Hemmings (news2) <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

Even stranger - I may have spoken too soon! I tested the fix above using
a .docx file that I obtained from a Lanman98 share and then emailed to
myself and that came back file typed correctly where it had not done so
before. However, checking back in my emails to a .docx file that was
sent to me a little while ago, that is still file typed as data.

So now I really don't know what is going on!

[Peter Young]

I've found the same here, albeit with MPro. Doesn't the file get typed
correctly only at the point when it arrives?

Solved, in any case, with the new MimeMap file.

With best wishes,

Peter.

--
Peter \ / zfc Hf \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
and \/ __ __ \ England.
family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
/ \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pny...@ormail.co.uk

[Martin Wuerthner]

In message <ea09bd935...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>

Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 21 May 2012 "Rob Hemmings (news2)" <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

>> In article <52938aba...@rgvk.co.uk>,
>> Rob Hemmings (news2) <rob...@rgvk.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Well I think I have now solved that - I'm posting it here as I have
>>> trouble posting to the Pluto users mail list. I just went back to my
>>> original mimemap file in which I had added a line for .docx files with
>>> the different components separated by tabs (i.e. hex 09) and with this
>>> Pluto did not show the correct file type for .docx files. However,
>>> when I replaced the tabs with spaces (as in John Harrison's) mimemap
>>> file then Pluto identified the file type correctly.

>>> Very strange!

>> Even stranger - I may have spoken too soon! I tested the fix above using
>> a .docx file that I obtained from a Lanman98 share and then emailed to
>> myself and that came back file typed correctly where it had not done so
>> before. However, checking back in my emails to a .docx file that was
>> sent to me a little while ago, that is still file typed as data.

>> So now I really don't know what is going on!

Check the headers of these files. Is the MIME type specified for the
.docx file different?

Sending a file to yourself is not a good test for a MimeMap change
because the MimeMap is used both for sending and for receiving, so
even if you made a mistake, sending files to yourself could still work
as expected.

> I've found the same here, albeit with MPro. Doesn't the file get typed
> correctly only at the point when it arrives?

The file is always typed, just using different mechanisms. When you
send the file, its typing scheme is changed from RISC OS to MIME and
when you receive it, it is changed back from MIME to RISC OS.