29 Aug
2006
29 Aug
'06
1:46 p.m.
Chuck Guzis wrote:
On 8/29/2006 at 12:28 PM Don wrote:
Exactly. I have .DAT files that 3 different applications want
to claim as their own. About the only "file type" that I
have NOT had problems with is ".dgy" :>
I.e. type needs to be finer grained than silly N
*character*
file "extensions"... *everyone* wants to be "DOC", or some
other pronounceable extension. So, the file types lose their
value (e.g., on my W2K box, Matlab and Mathematica both want
to use .m -- so, .m files are meaningless to me since I can't
recall FROM THE NAME OF THE FILE which application needs to
be opened to process the file). MacOS *seems* to have had the
right idea (though I have never used it "seriously" to know
for sure).
...and you might add that there are no rules for "extensions". In front
of me, I've got a disk with .FW and .PCL files. And no--they don't have
anything to do with Frameworks or HP. Neither is listed in Filext.com. Since Windows closed the barn door after the horses
ran off, so to speak,
the use of extension to identify the application associated with a file is
not particularly wonderful. I don't know if it could be dangerous.
It adds no value, IMO. And, only increases the chance that
the *wrong*/unexpected application can be invoked without
your being aware of it beforehand (I can list dozens of
"extensions" on my W2K box that are ambiguous -- several of
which invoke the *wrong* application handler. Hopefully,
each of these handlers are smart enough to parse the file
given to them to determine if it, in fact *is* a valid
<XXXX> file before operating on it.
So, the type is merely a convenience for The Desktop. And,
IMO, a poorly designed/implemented mechanism. :-(
(I *really* need to play with MacOS more and see what the
"shortcomings" of their scheme is/was -- aside from file
portability)