- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:27:12 +0100
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > Bijan Parsia wrote: >> 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. >> > > But then, say, specialized editors running on my windows machine would > be screwed up:-( How many of these are there, realistically? And, really? You use FAT formatted drives? Dude, it's a new *millennium*! :) Seriously, how often is this an in practice problem. No information is really lost as the formats are sniffable. Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 10:36:32 UTC