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: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 09:52:46 +0200
j,
>
>>>>> j o a r (joar) wrote at Tue, 11 Sep 2001 00:14:41 -0700:
joar> >A particular example might be .tar.gz. It is more than just .gz; it
joar> >brings
joar> >not just the information "this can be decoded by gzip" as any other
joar> >.gz file,
joar> >but *also* it informs "it can be decoded by gnutar -z".
joar>
joar> Why not be even more explicit while we're at it:
joar>
joar> MyDocument.html.txt.tar.gz
joar>
joar> Woho, types through file name extensions! The type is longer then the
joar> file name!....
You are trying to change the debate topic, and I won't bite. I _WON'T_
discuss whether it is Good or Bad, Acceptable by Mum or Wife, or Flattering
the Ants. I am just reasoning that extensions are more flexible than types
(as currently implemented in OSX). That's a fact. Whether it is a reason
strong enough to use them at all, and/or to present them to user or not, I
_WON'T_ discuss, since it would turn to an uneeded and good-for-nothing
flamewar again. _THAT_ was done already a thousand times without any outcome.
joar> BTW. What do you say we take this thread to macosx-talk instead Ondra?
joar> Parts of it is there already.
Yep. That's one of reasons I've unsubscribed macosx-talk.
---
Ondra Cada
OCSoftware: email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden
http://www.ocs.cz/oc