Re: Mac OS X 10.1 File Name Extension Guidelines
Re: Mac OS X 10.1 File Name Extension Guidelines
- Subject: Re: Mac OS X 10.1 File Name Extension Guidelines
- From: j o a r <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 15:13:12 -0700
On Sunday, September 9, 2001, at 12:29 , Jonathan Hendry wrote:
Ah, but now we can use extensions like .MDDesktopConfig, or .ooutline,
which beat the heck out of .txt or 4-byte codes.
Besides, the type is, undeniably, useful information. I find it
reasonable
to put it where it's readily available.
But the type is readily available already. In list view of the Finder
you have the type column - ie. "Adobe Photoshop 6.0 document", and in
icon view you have the icon...
The difference is that in a system based on rich meta data instead of
file name extensions, the system can display so much more, and more
correct, information in the type column then would be practically
possible in an extensions based system.
On Sunday, September 9, 2001, at 09:17 , Bill Chin wrote:
Wait, isn't putting the definition of what type of document I'm
dealing with
a throwback to the early years when disk space was expensive and in
short
supply, when saving 4 bytes was crucial, when we used .txt to define a
text
file and such. Apparently we haven't come very far.
Actually, with file name extensions, I can create an application that
uses .hypertext as an extension under Mac OS X today. With current HFS+
implementation, we're limited to 4 character type codes (HTXT). Which
one is more limiting?
And you're right. We haven't come very far.
But you are completely missing the point here. The four character
type/creator (T/C) code is - as the people on this list who likes math
have already proven - plenty enough to encode all our document types for
ages and ages to come. The point is that this code isn't intended for
human consumption, mnemonics aside. What makes T/C so much superior is
the power of _abstraction_!
If you were creating a table of users in a database, would you use
peoples names as the key to the table? No, you would use a separate ID
because it gives you so much more freedom and power later on.
Because of the abstraction available in the T/C system we can display
the type of documents like "Microsoft Word 2001 document". If we were
using file name extensions alone, we would only know that it was a
"Microsoft Word document" - see the difference? How many versions of the
".doc", ".psd", ".gif", et.c. formats are in reality out there? Since
they are all typed using the same extension, the extension gets next to
useless - not for Microsoft of course since this ensures that the only
foolproof way to know that you can open a ".doc" document is to own the
very latest version of Word...
A system with no abstraction between the data that developers use and
end users see is stupid beyond comprehension.
We have to live with it, since we're a minority, but we don't have to be
contend with it - and should strive to find something better, not only
for the Macintosh community, but for every computer user. Reading this
thread makes me wonder if you belive that communication between camps
are impossible? There is a difference between business and war after
all...
j o a r