<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Annoying resource forks.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://consistencies.net/20050517/annoying-resource-forks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://consistencies.net/20050517/annoying-resource-forks/</link>
	<description>..but who cares about anyway?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:08:31 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: chimaera</title>
		<link>http://consistencies.net/20050517/annoying-resource-forks/comment-page-1/#comment-163</link>
		<dc:creator>chimaera</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 16:25:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://consistencies.net/20050517/annoying-resource-forks/#comment-163</guid>
		<description>Thank you, interesting read. I just wonder why Apple is relying on resource forks or file extensions. Doesn&#039;t Konqueror &amp; Co (I&#039;m actually not sure on which level file-type recognition takes place) determine the type of a file by it&#039;s header/content? I don&#039;t wonder that Microsoft still does so, for well, you know, but I don&#039;t get it that OS X uses the same or comparable mechanisms. Strange indeed. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, interesting read. I just wonder why Apple is relying on resource forks or file extensions. Doesn&#8217;t Konqueror &amp; Co (I&#8217;m actually not sure on which level file-type recognition takes place) determine the type of a file by it&#8217;s header/content? I don&#8217;t wonder that Microsoft still does so, for well, you know, but I don&#8217;t get it that OS X uses the same or comparable mechanisms. Strange indeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Damian</title>
		<link>http://consistencies.net/20050517/annoying-resource-forks/comment-page-1/#comment-162</link>
		<dc:creator>Damian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 10:28:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://consistencies.net/20050517/annoying-resource-forks/#comment-162</guid>
		<description>OS X&#039;s dirty secret.

&quot;Resource forks would be fine if everyone recognised them, but that&#039;s the catch: no one else does. Moreover, OS X is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and you can&#039;t have a file system that&#039;s not in line with Unix standards. Unix does not admit of forks, so Apple cannot officially recognise them either.&quot;

http://rixstep.com/2/20040802,00.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OS X&#8217;s dirty secret.</p>
<p>&#8220;Resource forks would be fine if everyone recognised them, but that&#8217;s the catch: no one else does. Moreover, OS X is supposed to be POSIX compliant, and you can&#8217;t have a file system that&#8217;s not in line with Unix standards. Unix does not admit of forks, so Apple cannot officially recognise them either.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://rixstep.com/2/20040802,00.html" rel="nofollow">http://rixstep.com/2/20040802,00.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
