Re: hey Simon et al

[mjmahon@aol.com (Michael J. Mahon)]

Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <pan.2004.03.23.20.49.55.469066@yahoo.com>,
>Sheldon Simms  <sheldonsimms@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>letters at the end of a file determine it's destiny? I think UNIX and
>>equivalents have the right idea: A file is a file is a file. Let tphe
>>programs figure out what to do with it - the name is for the user, not
>>the OS.
>
>Unfortunately, DOS/Windows have dragged the world down to their level
>on this point.

Since a file is generally a formatted object, I can see real value in
incorporating the type of format into the filename in a relatively
standard way.

It is not always correct (what in life is?), but it is 99+% accurate
in describing the format of the contents, regardless of what program
you want to operate on it with.

Unix filenaming lacks this transparency, or, if you wish, has too
many different conventions for describing typing in its filenames.

But if you must find someone to "blame" for what you consider
a problem, blame CP/M--it established the convention long before
MSDOS existed.

-michael

Check out amazing quality sound for 8-bit Apples on my
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/