Still no word on them about RISC OS 5 then ;)

Is this just a way of making work? It'd be easier if there was a preformatted template developers could email back, or even an online form, rather than a freeform email.

Or is this just a precursor to limiting resource allocations to Select subscribers, given this new database will be "part of the Select scheme"?

However, I agree that they should have all this information already - perhaps they are trying to weed out the registrations that were made but are not in use any more, in order to increase 'reserves'...

This is why they have to double check with developers, to make sure that what they believe is non-sensitive is allowed to be published in the public domain.

Chris (drobe.co.uk)

However I'm not sure why they'd want to perform such an update now, so I'm probably wrong :)

Don't they realise how dumb it is to have all the developer resources as Select only?

Screw 'em, if RO5 has a new version of !Paint, it'll be much better than 4.32 anyway ;o)

chris> If they need to double-check, then they have some contact details with each registration in order to carry out the checks. Simply assuming that it's OK to release the company/individual name and allocation if, for whatever reason, the company/individual in question hasn't seen the relevant press release, or didn't get round to emailing developer@riscos.com, is unacceptable.

... oh well, it was a good system while it lasted.

Why shouldn't we know who has what allocation? The only reason they are private is for people developing new apps. Registered filetypes are only needed for publically released software.

You then go on to speculate on what will happen in the future, and then say it's a bad thing and that doom is now covering the land.

Why wouldn't anyone want details of their filetype to be public?

It's a similar situation to MIME types I suppose

Companies/Individuals registered filetypes (and other allocations) in a confidential database. If ROSL had simply proposed putting together an additional public database, without any reference to the original confidential database, I would not have any problems. But they say their intent is, unless they hear otherwise, to publish the filetype and company details from the confidential database and move such information into the public domain. Which I find unacceptable.

The onus is on the original registrant to maintain the original confidentiality of their information, whereas the onus should actually be on ROSL to determine, for each and every confidential entry uniquely, whether publication is allowed or even desirable. It's like the difference between opt-in and opt-out mailing lists.

If you read the press release it says they'll release just the filetype number if there's no contact, ie: "Filetype &E41 has been registered and therefore taken" This is so that people know which filetypes are taken and which are not. No further details are released. You have to mail them with up to date details to authorise a full disclosure. If you don't know the difference between a filetype number and a filetype name then please consult the PRMS.

Chris (drobe.co.uk)

"If you do not want any details of a Registered Filetype to be made public, then please let us know. Otherwise our intention is to acknowledge that a specific Filetype has been allocated to a Company, without giving a Filetype name or further details, unless confirmation has been received to the contrary."

I must say, I read "a Company" to mean *specific* companies, but I think I've read it wrong, and agree with Chris's interpretation.

gerph> Okay - I didn't know what I'd registered ;-)

The press release is sufficiently vague that it would allow ROSL to release the name of company/individual who registered the filetype number (although it wouldn't cover the filetype name, as they explicitly mention). At least one other person in this thread originally read the release with this interpretation.

tribbles> So ROSL will decide what software is well-known or commonly used? What about software that's commonly used, but not in the public eye?

*looks interested*

Now, reuse filing system numbers, that's a different matter (since FWICR there's only 128 or 256 of them [can't remember if the top-bit is a flag or something])

However, I may be talking gibberish again ;-)

Also, LongFiles keeps its FS numbers in a byte array, so that'll fall over ;-)

gerph> It's true that you'd probably not have different IDE filing systems in the machine, but if it's something that you are likely to have (such as a tape drive and a remote filesystem), then I'd really hope that the developers have done their work correctly...