W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > October 2008

Re: agenda item for Teleconference 5 November on MIME types (ISSUE-145)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:27:12 +0100
Message-Id: <6697AF17-813E-4791-B69F-AE7FD57D98E2@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: Rinke Hoekstra <hoekstra@uva.nl>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, public-owl-wg@w3.org
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:42:07 UTC