On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Rinke Hoekstra wrote: > On 28 okt 2008, at 09:06, Ivan Herman wrote: >> What about '.owlx'? >> >> maybe as a matter of consistency we can also consider using 'owlf' >> and >> 'owlm' for the other two. >> >> Ivan > > Although certainly prettier, By leaps and bounds. > I think it would create problems on FAT-based file systems that > (still) use the 8.3 naming scheme as these may truncate a long > extension to three characters. But they would truncate to .owl, right? That seems harmless to me. Cheers, Bijan.Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 08:56:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 28 October 2008 08:56:18 GMT