file extensions
-
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions? I am in the process of choosing the extensions that my app will use and I am leaning toward using 4 - 6 character extensions. The main reasons are: To avoid colisions with extensions that are used by other apps. The extension names do a better job explaning what kind of data is stored in the file. I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
Visual Studio uses .vbproj and other similar extensions for some of their files. The origination comes from the need to conserve disk space and memory. Plus, DEC had a form of character storage called Radix50 which stored 3 characters in one 16-bit word, which made it convenient to hold the extension (and the file name, too). It's just a legacy thing. There really is no more need for it. Unix uses the form (such as .o for object file or .c for C source code) in some cases, but it does not constitute an extension. It is all just part of the file name.
-
Do MIME types relate to your problem? Regards Chris Saunders
-
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions? I am in the process of choosing the extensions that my app will use and I am leaning toward using 4 - 6 character extensions. The main reasons are: To avoid colisions with extensions that are used by other apps. The extension names do a better job explaning what kind of data is stored in the file. I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
"Why.not.have.longer.extensions?" Sounds like William Shatner DR
-
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions? I am in the process of choosing the extensions that my app will use and I am leaning toward using 4 - 6 character extensions. The main reasons are: To avoid colisions with extensions that are used by other apps. The extension names do a better job explaning what kind of data is stored in the file. I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
Don't some (really small) USB flash drives use FAT16? I can't recall if MS ever retrofitted long filenames into that file system like they did with FAT32. Floppies (yeah, like anyone cares about _those_ anymore) are another reason. I don't think anybody is still using WinFW3.1 anymore, so probably no issue on that front. I didn't care when I made up our new file format at work, but since our files tend to be in the 20-160GB range, it didn't matter anyway. :)
patbob
-
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions? I am in the process of choosing the extensions that my app will use and I am leaning toward using 4 - 6 character extensions. The main reasons are: To avoid colisions with extensions that are used by other apps. The extension names do a better job explaning what kind of data is stored in the file. I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
MS use an extension .csproj...
Sigh
-
Something which never ceases to frustrate and annoy me.
----
...the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more...
-
peterchen wrote:
"hide known extensions"
Very possibly the dumbest program option I've ever seen :|.
Software Zen:
delete this;I agree completely! Not to mention that when some people see a file
VacationPic.jpgin their explorer they will double click it thinking that is is a "harmless" JPEG picture when in reality it could be a virus file namedVacationPic.jpg.exewith an embedded icon set to Window's image icon to complete the illusion that it is just an image file.Kelly Herald Software Developer
-
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions? I am in the process of choosing the extensions that my app will use and I am leaning toward using 4 - 6 character extensions. The main reasons are: To avoid colisions with extensions that are used by other apps. The extension names do a better job explaning what kind of data is stored in the file. I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
The challenge.:laugh: Seriously, there are longer extensions e.g. aspx, ascx, html, etc. PeterE
-
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions? I am in the process of choosing the extensions that my app will use and I am leaning toward using 4 - 6 character extensions. The main reasons are: To avoid colisions with extensions that are used by other apps. The extension names do a better job explaning what kind of data is stored in the file. I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
zoid ! wrote:
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions?
For some reason I like those three letter extensions, it feels more natural.
zoid ! wrote:
I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
I wouldn't worry about it. Go for the longer extension. I think people still use the 8.3 format because certain tools do not support anything else. Such as restore disks and hardware utilities that use DOS. Windows 95/98/Me need the 8.3 format for its most primitive functions under the hood since Windows 9x/Me uses DOS to load its self.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
zoid ! wrote:
Is there any (compelling) reason to continue using 3 character file extensions?
For some reason I like those three letter extensions, it feels more natural.
zoid ! wrote:
I am worried however, because it seems almost applications still use 3 letter extensions for their files. Aside from compatibilty issues with old 8.3 format DOS systems which I think for 99% of current applications isn't an issue anymore, why are people avoiding using longer file extensions for new formats?
I wouldn't worry about it. Go for the longer extension. I think people still use the 8.3 format because certain tools do not support anything else. Such as restore disks and hardware utilities that use DOS. Windows 95/98/Me need the 8.3 format for its most primitive functions under the hood since Windows 9x/Me uses DOS to load its self.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
This may sound like a stupid question, but here goes anyway. :laugh: Why doesn't somebody write a program that will set the file extensions to what you want and then shorten them if the need comes up? Say you save a file with a .document extension for internal use and it gets chopped to .doc if it gets sent anyplace other than the starting computer. :confused: :~ Just my two cents worth. (Which today really aint worth all that much.) ;P
-
This may sound like a stupid question, but here goes anyway. :laugh: Why doesn't somebody write a program that will set the file extensions to what you want and then shorten them if the need comes up? Say you save a file with a .document extension for internal use and it gets chopped to .doc if it gets sent anyplace other than the starting computer. :confused: :~ Just my two cents worth. (Which today really aint worth all that much.) ;P
JMOdom wrote:
Say you save a file with a .document extension for internal use and it gets chopped to .doc if it gets sent anyplace other than the starting computer.
An extension is nothing special. It is just part of the file's name. However the extension is used to determine which program to open the file with. If the program opening the file actually looks at the extension then it may throw a fit. Your proposal is not a practical solution for anything because the extension is part of the file's identity.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
JMOdom wrote:
Say you save a file with a .document extension for internal use and it gets chopped to .doc if it gets sent anyplace other than the starting computer.
An extension is nothing special. It is just part of the file's name. However the extension is used to determine which program to open the file with. If the program opening the file actually looks at the extension then it may throw a fit. Your proposal is not a practical solution for anything because the extension is part of the file's identity.
█▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒██████▒█▒██ █▒█████▒▒▒▒▒█ █▒▒▒▒▒██▒█▒██
-
Why? Do you have a lot of .jpg.cpp files?
Using the GridView is like trying to explain to someone else how to move a third person's hands in order to tie your shoelaces for you. -Chris Maunder