Printable View
Does anyone know how to go about reading header info from a file to determine
if it is a word document, text file, wordperfect document and their versions?
We have 10,000 documents to iterate and determine their types as many do
not maintain their native file extensions.
Thanks,
Jeff.
Most files that aren't text files have a signature string (1-2 characters,
maybe more) somewhere near the begining of the file.
You'll need to research the file format of each specific file type your
interested in. The signatures vary from one doc to the next.
The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
--
~~~
C'Ya,
mrfelis
mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
just remove the spam
Jeff <quinner@home.com> wrote in message news:3992fe2e$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Does anyone know how to go about reading header info from a file to
determine
> if it is a word document, text file, wordperfect document and their
versions?
> We have 10,000 documents to iterate and determine their types as many do
> not maintain their native file extensions.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff.
Most files that aren't text files have a signature string (1-2 characters,
maybe more) somewhere near the begining of the file.
You'll need to research the file format of each specific file type your
interested in. The signatures vary from one doc to the next.
The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
--
~~~
C'Ya,
mrfelis
mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
just remove the spam
Jeff <quinner@home.com> wrote in message news:3992fe2e$1@news.devx.com...
>
> Does anyone know how to go about reading header info from a file to
determine
> if it is a word document, text file, wordperfect document and their
versions?
> We have 10,000 documents to iterate and determine their types as many do
> not maintain their native file extensions.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff.
Kinda sucks though, doesn't it? I mean, in the bad old days of DOS,
extensions were OK. Then when Win3x was nothing but a graphical shell on
top of DOS, there wasn't much to be done.
But when MS released Win95 as a new "operating system", you'd think they
would have added support for file headers while maintaining backward
compatibility for extensions. This is especially so considering that the
default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide file extensions for "known
file types." Now that Win2K is out 3 generations later, have they added
file header support? Sadly, the answer is still no.
Sorry, just couldn't resist when I saw the soapbox just sitting there... :)
--
Lenny
__________
"mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
Kinda sucks though, doesn't it? I mean, in the bad old days of DOS,
extensions were OK. Then when Win3x was nothing but a graphical shell on
top of DOS, there wasn't much to be done.
But when MS released Win95 as a new "operating system", you'd think they
would have added support for file headers while maintaining backward
compatibility for extensions. This is especially so considering that the
default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide file extensions for "known
file types." Now that Win2K is out 3 generations later, have they added
file header support? Sadly, the answer is still no.
Sorry, just couldn't resist when I saw the soapbox just sitting there... :)
--
Lenny
__________
"mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
Wasn't there an article in MSJ that there is support for file header in
Win2k? I'll try to search on this. I think it is a matter of vendors
taking advantage of it.
--
Robert Gelb
www.vbRad.com
"Lenny Toulson" <ltoulson@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39969d12$1@news.devx.com...
> Kinda sucks though, doesn't it? I mean, in the bad old days of DOS,
> extensions were OK. Then when Win3x was nothing but a graphical shell on
> top of DOS, there wasn't much to be done.
>
> But when MS released Win95 as a new "operating system", you'd think they
> would have added support for file headers while maintaining backward
> compatibility for extensions. This is especially so considering that the
> default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide file extensions for "known
> file types." Now that Win2K is out 3 generations later, have they added
> file header support? Sadly, the answer is still no.
>
> Sorry, just couldn't resist when I saw the soapbox just sitting there...
:)
>
> --
> Lenny
> __________
>
>
> "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
>
> The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
> the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
>
>
Wasn't there an article in MSJ that there is support for file header in
Win2k? I'll try to search on this. I think it is a matter of vendors
taking advantage of it.
--
Robert Gelb
www.vbRad.com
"Lenny Toulson" <ltoulson@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39969d12$1@news.devx.com...
> Kinda sucks though, doesn't it? I mean, in the bad old days of DOS,
> extensions were OK. Then when Win3x was nothing but a graphical shell on
> top of DOS, there wasn't much to be done.
>
> But when MS released Win95 as a new "operating system", you'd think they
> would have added support for file headers while maintaining backward
> compatibility for extensions. This is especially so considering that the
> default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide file extensions for "known
> file types." Now that Win2K is out 3 generations later, have they added
> file header support? Sadly, the answer is still no.
>
> Sorry, just couldn't resist when I saw the soapbox just sitting there...
:)
>
> --
> Lenny
> __________
>
>
> "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
>
> The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
> the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
>
>
Here's an URL for file formats descriptions:
http://www.wotsit.org/
Can't say if the formats you want are there.
--
~~~
C'Ya,
mrfelis
mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
just remove the spam
mrfelis <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
> Most files that aren't text files have a signature string (1-2 characters,
> maybe more) somewhere near the begining of the file.
>
> You'll need to research the file format of each specific file type your
> interested in. The signatures vary from one doc to the next.
>
> The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
> the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
>
> --
> ~~~
> C'Ya,
> mrfelis
> mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
> just remove the spam
> Jeff <quinner@home.com> wrote in message news:3992fe2e$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > Does anyone know how to go about reading header info from a file to
> determine
> > if it is a word document, text file, wordperfect document and their
> versions?
> > We have 10,000 documents to iterate and determine their types as many
do
> > not maintain their native file extensions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff.
>
>
Here's an URL for file formats descriptions:
http://www.wotsit.org/
Can't say if the formats you want are there.
--
~~~
C'Ya,
mrfelis
mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
just remove the spam
mrfelis <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
> Most files that aren't text files have a signature string (1-2 characters,
> maybe more) somewhere near the begining of the file.
>
> You'll need to research the file format of each specific file type your
> interested in. The signatures vary from one doc to the next.
>
> The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
> the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
>
> --
> ~~~
> C'Ya,
> mrfelis
> mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
> just remove the spam
> Jeff <quinner@home.com> wrote in message news:3992fe2e$1@news.devx.com...
> >
> > Does anyone know how to go about reading header info from a file to
> determine
> > if it is a word document, text file, wordperfect document and their
> versions?
> > We have 10,000 documents to iterate and determine their types as many
do
> > not maintain their native file extensions.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff.
>
>
Yep. It would have been real nice. Would make things easier considering MS
now allows periods in the middle of a file name.
If I were grading MS's homework, they would have gotten a D- for that one!
--
~~~
C'Ya,
mrfelis
mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
just remove the spam
Lenny Toulson <ltoulson@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39969d12$1@news.devx.com...
> Kinda sucks though, doesn't it? I mean, in the bad old days of DOS,
> extensions were OK. Then when Win3x was nothing but a graphical shell on
> top of DOS, there wasn't much to be done.
>
> But when MS released Win95 as a new "operating system", you'd think they
> would have added support for file headers while maintaining backward
> compatibility for extensions. This is especially so considering that the
> default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide file extensions for "known
> file types." Now that Win2K is out 3 generations later, have they added
> file header support? Sadly, the answer is still no.
>
> Sorry, just couldn't resist when I saw the soapbox just sitting there...
:)
>
> --
> Lenny
> __________
>
>
> "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
>
> The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
> the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
>
>
Yep. It would have been real nice. Would make things easier considering MS
now allows periods in the middle of a file name.
If I were grading MS's homework, they would have gotten a D- for that one!
--
~~~
C'Ya,
mrfelis
mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com
just remove the spam
Lenny Toulson <ltoulson@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:39969d12$1@news.devx.com...
> Kinda sucks though, doesn't it? I mean, in the bad old days of DOS,
> extensions were OK. Then when Win3x was nothing but a graphical shell on
> top of DOS, there wasn't much to be done.
>
> But when MS released Win95 as a new "operating system", you'd think they
> would have added support for file headers while maintaining backward
> compatibility for extensions. This is especially so considering that the
> default setting for Windows Explorer is to hide file extensions for "known
> file types." Now that Win2K is out 3 generations later, have they added
> file header support? Sadly, the answer is still no.
>
> Sorry, just couldn't resist when I saw the soapbox just sitting there...
:)
>
> --
> Lenny
> __________
>
>
> "mrfelis" <mrfelis@yahoo.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:399410ff@news.devx.com...
>
> The OS remembers these things based on the Extension. So if your changing
> the extension, you're most likely out of luck on an API call.
>
>
