[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Reality check needed ....

• To: "'michael.h.kay@n...'" <michael.h.kay@n...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Reality check needed ....
• From: Jeff Lowery <jlowery@s...>
• Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 13:17:01 -0700

> I'm not sure if your question is real or ironic.

Can't it be both?  

> I had assumed it was obvious to everyone in this community that names,
> in general, should not carry implicit information about the 
> objects they
> refer to: or at any rate, that there are better ways of representing
> this information than packing it into three bytes of the name.

Ironically, I can both agree and argue with you at the same time.

Simple question: How many people who use Windows turn on file extensions in
Explorer?  It's the first thing I do.

With these UNIX systems (and Mac), it's not so much that I miss good ol'
file extensions, it's that there's a lack of format information in default
directory listing formats.  And ls -l is overkill.

I find that icons alone don't help especially icons that tie standard
formats to only one application (which on a strange system, I may not be
familiar with).

3-letter format notations don't bother me; 4 would be better. Longer would
be harder to eyeball parse quickly.

• Prev by Date: Re: another naieve question - valid characters for ID values
• Next by Date: Re: Tree View + / - Lists with XSL
• Previous by thread: Re: Reality check needed ....
• Next by thread: CDATA strangeness
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread