Re: [Usability] An Attempt at tasks for the FOSD

[Gregory Merchan <merchan phys lsu edu>]

On Sat, Sep 13, 2003 at 06:27:13PM +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 13 Sep 2003, Julien Olivier wrote:
<snip>
> > Excuse me if I'm wrong but does GNOME use file extensions at all ? i
> 
> Yes.

No.

Users of modern Unixen use a period-separated suffix convention. Many
programs recognize the convention. The ultimate arbiter of file type
is file content. The name of a file includes the suffix.

DOS's FAT uses 3-character extension on an 8-character file name.
The 8+3 format is forced by the system. The extension determines type.[1]
The usually visible name of a file on Windows is stored in metadata (EA's).
The FAT name can be seen in file property dialogs and from the command line.
Maybe it's in the detailed folder view too.

Since the question arose with regard to hidding "extensions," I'll remind
you that I can bloody well name a file:

  my.really.damn.long.period.separated.name

and that's the name of the file. It's not:

  my.really.damn.long.period.separated

with type "name".

No part of a file name should be hidden. However, if we can use files and
directories as containers of documents (like NeXT et seq.) and change
folder views to show documents instead of just files, then we might prefer
document names over filenames for display in folders. We do this with
.desktop files and vfolders already.

Cheers,
Greg


[1] I'm not sure the FAT extension determines type, but I've never found a
    way to get Windows or any program on it to properly recognize a file
    without changing the extension. Stupid Windows.