Re: Netscape 4.0 press release at their server

Scott E. Preece wrote:
> Eh?  Most systems already have that kind of registry, at some levl
> instance, for reognizing executables).  Plus you probably have at
> one and maybe more that you manage personally (or fail to manage),
> instance, server and browser tables mapping MIME types to
> and file file extensions to MIME types.  Plus you have a layer of
> ill-defined, unpredictable translations (like ".doc = FrameMaker") in
> your head.
> Frankly, I'd a lot rather have one registry that I can get a fresh
> of periodically.

I manage or fail to manage these system-level and easily-customized
registries and 'translations' as needs dictate. Associating .gif with
Paint Shop Pro and .tif with PhotoShop is trivial, but I can still open
either file type in the other app. I like things open, accessible, and

The extension<->filetype associations are just as subject to
standardization as anything else, and don't require a change in file
structure to accommodate registration codes.

I simply don't agree that it's a good idea to have a ever-growing
database of registered file types that I must download regularly from
my opsys manufacturer or some other central database. The best file
types for use with multiple opsystems evolve either with the
applications that can edit or display them or in response to some
standarization process, and that has been the case with the web as
well. The application will tell me when it doesn't understand the file
-- why should an opsys be concerned with the 'creator?' The systems I
have had problems transferring files to and from on the web have been
Macs -- the 'notable exception'.

David Perrell

Received on Monday, 21 October 1996 15:43:40 UTC