Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!news.nd.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dirac!gibbs.physics.purdue.edu!sho
From: sho@gibbs.physics.purdue.edu (Sho Kuwamoto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: System Extension Ideas...
Message-ID: <5171@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
Date: 26 May 91 22:08:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: dirac.5171
References: <29835@hydra.gatech.EDU> <53344@apple.Apple.COM> <1991May26.191914.7045@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@dirac.physics.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue Univ. Physics Dept, W.Lafayette, IN
Lines: 20

In article <1991May26.191914.7045@watcgl.waterloo.edu> pmbergla@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Per Bergland) writes:
>Am I right if I say that it is the opposite:
>That if an application is NOT stationery-aware, then Finder will make a copy
>of the document, prompt for a new name etc, and then launch, while if it IS
>stationery-aware Finder expects the application to take care of this itself?
>(Just a blurb from what I think I saw in Inside Mac...)

Unfortunately, I *don't* think this is the case.

   "If your application does not support stationery, the Standard File
    Package displays an alert box warning the user that the stationery
    pad itself, not a copy of it, is being openend.  As you can see,
    the user can still easily change the template and mistakenly write
    over it by choosing Save without assigning a new name."

I think your scheme would be better.  I wonder why they didn't do it?

-Sho
-- 
sho@physics.purdue.edu