Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 10:27:27 -0500 To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Magliery) Subject: Re: Netscape 4.0 press release at their server Cc: "Scott E. Preece" <email@example.com> At 7:58 AM 10/17/96, Scott E. Preece wrote: > From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Tom Magliery) >| >| "This page best viewed with" is an ironic step backwards in document >| interchangeability. Before The Web, that information was given out using >| only 4 bytes of data, not 30 or 40. And it appeared in the document's >| meta-information -- the filename -- not in the body of the document itself, >| so it was usually easier to get to. ".DOC" was (and still is) quite a >| convenient way to say "This page best viewed with Microsoft Word." >--- > >*wrong* The .doc extension is also commonly used for Framemaker >documents and for Interleaf documents, at least. Well, okay, I didn't choose the best example. I'm a native Mac user myself, and I didn't realize that .DOC was multiply-used. My first thought was to use .WPD. I guess I shouldn't second-guess myself. Anyway, my point was supposed to be that it is a Bad Thing to create documents using *any* type of proprietary system or format. The irony is that with the Web -- which finally allows people to stop doing that -- everyone still does it, and they actually expend *more* energy doing so! >Why, oh why, has our industry (with the notable exception of Apple) been >unable to figure out how to do typed files? Maybe it's my own ignorance (remember, I'm a Mac user, so I'm on *your* side), but what's the difference between storing the information in a 3-character extension + a mapping somewhere in the OS between extensions and applications, versus a 4-character "creator" field + a similar OS-internal mapping? mag -- .---o Tom Magliery, Research Programmer .---o `-O-. NCSA, 605 E. Springfield (217) 333-3198 `-O-. o---' Champaign, IL 61820 O- email@example.com o---'