I may be wrong, but aren't usb sticks FAT based? If so, file suffixes might go wrong when moving a file from one place to the other. I might be wrong, though, and FAT is indeed not really used any more. Unless one uses floppies:-) Ivan Bijan Parsia wrote: > 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. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 28 October 2008 15:44:04 UTC