[TYPO3-dam-devel] RFC #9403: Missing media types: psd and odt

[Dan Osipov]

Question understood. Here is my thinking:

 > Now, for type text we can get rid of all the stuff we
 > need for images. From this point of view I would prefer to see .odt
 > under text, where we find .doc btw.

I thought text files were automatically available for editing with the 
internal editor, but after testing, apparently its not true. Which way 
we declare odt type doesn't really matter to me, but I agree that it 
should be kept consistent - so if we keep it as application, I would 
move doc to be application as well.

 > I also wonder whether it is a wise move to create a new media type for
 > psd.

Yes, it needs metadata, but it can't be pulled using the same methods as 
for JPG images (IPTC/EXIF, etc). It is my understanding, that using the 
separate type, services could be created to pull this metadata.
Also, psd is not truly an image, as it can't be rendered in web browser, 
or processed by IM (?). Declaring it as a new media type also gives it a 
special icon - so that it is separated from other files in the list - I 
would even argue for using special icons for all files in the future.

 > Why does DAM need the information whether or not a file needs a special
 > software to open it?

If a file is declared as an image, the info module changes dramatically. 
Thumbnail is rendered, options change, etc. Each media type gets its own 
info module. I think that's the only reason for the 12 - now 13 - types.

Dan Osipov
Calkins Media
http://danosipov.com/blog/

Uschi Renziehausen wrote:
> Hi Dan,
> 
> thanks for adding the two missing types in the first place.
> I do have a question about the purpose of those media types concerning DAM.
> 
> Looking at $TCA['tx_dam'], we find media_type defined as the type field. 
> This is a means of control for the showItem part, that will offer usable 
> forms to editors. Now, for type text we can get rid of all the stuff we 
> need for images. From this point of view I would prefer to see .odt 
> under text, where we find .doc btw.
> 
> I also wonder whether it is a wise move to create a new media type for 
> psd. In the end, what you create with ps are images, only difference is 
> that they are not for the web. But you want to insert meta data about 
> resolution, width, height and so on.
> 
> Why does DAM need the information whether or not a file needs a special 
> software to open it? This is normally defined under Apache, correct? I 
> hope you do understand my question.
> 
> Kind regards, Uschi
> 
> Dan Osipov wrote:
>> Patch attached.
>>
>> Dan Osipov
>> Calkins Media
>> http://danosipov.com/blog/
>>
>> Dan Osipov wrote:
>>> Team,
>>>
>>> This is a SVN patch request.
>>> Branches: 1.1.0-dev (trunk)
>>> BT Reference: http://bugs.typo3.org/view.php?id=9403
>>>
>>> Problem: DAM does not recognize common file types PSD and ODT.
>>> The attached patch assigns ODT the application type (could be text, 
>>> but since open office is required to view it, it would seem like 
>>> application is more appropriate), and PSD a new "photoshop" type, 
>>> complete with a special icon. Icons will be committed with the patch 
>>> when it is approved.
>>> One of the common mime types was selected - IMHO it doesn't matter, 
>>> as its not used for anything functional - just choosing a display type.
>>>