Extension file names - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Extension file names - Mozilla ; Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something intelligible? -- Charlie in San Francisco...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Extension file names

  1. Extension file names

    Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something
    intelligible?

    --
    Charlie in San Francisco

  2. Re: Extension file names

    Charlie Mullins wrote:

    > Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something
    > intelligible?
    >

    thats up to the authors, developers, etc, to name them. Mozilla has
    nothing to do with names

    --
    Signs Indicating You Need a Really Long Vacation: You find you really
    need PowerPoint to explain what you do for a living.

  3. Re: Extension file names

    On 22.04.2006 23:02, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Charlie
    Mullins to generate the following:? :

    > Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something
    > intelligible?
    >

    if you were a developer (software programmer) you wouldn't want *your*
    program to run under come common name, would you? That's just *not groovy*

    reg

  4. Re: Extension file names

    squaredancer said the following on 4/23/2006 2:59 AM:
    > On 22.04.2006 23:02, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Charlie
    > Mullins to generate the following:? :
    >
    >> Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something
    >> intelligible?
    >>

    > if you were a developer (software programmer) you wouldn't want *your*
    > program to run under come common name, would you? That's just *not groovy*
    >
    > reg


    Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named a
    folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.

    --
    Charlie in San Francisco

  5. Re: Extension file names

    On 23.04.2006 23:13, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Charlie
    Mullins to generate the following:? :

    > squaredancer said the following on 4/23/2006 2:59 AM:
    >
    >> On 22.04.2006 23:02, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Charlie
    >> Mullins to generate the following:? :
    >>
    >>> Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something
    >>> intelligible?
    >>>

    >> if you were a developer (software programmer) you wouldn't want
    >> *your* program to run under come common name, would you? That's just
    >> *not groovy*
    >>
    >> reg

    >
    >
    > Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named a
    > folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.
    >

    well, Charlie - you know then, what I mean!

    Have you also noticed that - even in the days of WIN XP - *some* people
    haven*t gotten around to using other that 8.3 filenames?? As that went
    out with WIN 95 (and I doubt very much the use of that old companion any
    more) and hardly *any* XP-app is backwards compatible to WIN32-apps,
    methinks those guys should get updated??

    reg

  6. Re: Extension file names

    Charlie Mullins wrote:
    > squaredancer said the following on 4/23/2006 2:59 AM:
    >> On 22.04.2006 23:02, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Charlie
    >> Mullins to generate the following:? :
    >>
    >>> Why do extension files have such weird names, instead of something
    >>> intelligible?
    >>>

    >> if you were a developer (software programmer) you wouldn't want *your*
    >> program to run under come common name, would you? That's just *not
    >> groovy*
    >>
    >> reg

    >
    > Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named a
    > folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.
    >


    That's just a standard UUID. It's a convenient, random
    name. A normal temp file/folder name is only unique
    to that computer and that moment you generate it.

    A UUID is safely unique across all computers, all times.

    Sometimes developers do this for a good reason, other
    times they just do it because it's easy. A lot of guys
    overuse UUIDs.

  7. Re: Extension file names

    squaredancer wrote:
    > Charlie Mullins to generate the following:? :
    >

    .... snip ...
    >>
    >> Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named
    >> a folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.
    >>

    > well, Charlie - you know then, what I mean!
    >
    > Have you also noticed that - even in the days of WIN XP - *some*
    > people haven*t gotten around to using other that 8.3 filenames??
    > As that went out with WIN 95 (and I doubt very much the use of
    > that old companion any more) and hardly *any* XP-app is backwards
    > compatible to WIN32-apps, methinks those guys should get updated??


    I still have no idea what brain dead idiot decided to allow spaces
    in file names. 8.3 actually works very well, especially if longer
    names are simply truncated to fit. There has been a long
    descriptive name facility available for the 8.3 system for at least
    15 years, in 4dos. Of course Microsoft had to create another
    incompatible and ugly system.

    --
    "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
    the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
    "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
    "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
    More details at:
    Also see


  8. Re: Extension file names

    CBFalconer wrote:
    > squaredancer wrote:
    >> Charlie Mullins to generate the following:? :
    >>

    > ... snip ...
    >>> Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named
    >>> a folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.
    >>>

    >> well, Charlie - you know then, what I mean!
    >>
    >> Have you also noticed that - even in the days of WIN XP - *some*
    >> people haven*t gotten around to using other that 8.3 filenames??
    >> As that went out with WIN 95 (and I doubt very much the use of
    >> that old companion any more) and hardly *any* XP-app is backwards
    >> compatible to WIN32-apps, methinks those guys should get updated??

    >
    > I still have no idea what brain dead idiot decided to allow spaces
    > in file names. 8.3 actually works very well, especially if longer
    > names are simply truncated to fit. There has been a long
    > descriptive name facility available for the 8.3 system for at least
    > 15 years, in 4dos. Of course Microsoft had to create another
    > incompatible and ugly system.
    >


    I don't mind occurrences of single spaces in filenames, but the fact
    that they allow *leading* and *multiple embedded* spaces is nasty IMO.

  9. Re: Extension file names

    On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 14:13:58 -0700, in message
    *, Charlie Mullins wrote:

    > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051201 Thunderbird/1.5


    > Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named a
    > folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.



    You're missing out on some Windows tricks.

    Try creating a new folder (directory | Windows file folder)
    and naming it

    Anything.{2227A280-3AEA-1069-A2DE-08002B30309D}
    or
    Something.{21EC2020-3AEA-1069-A2DD-08002B30309D}

    Now look in the folder.

    These Windows tricks have their uses.



  10. Re: Extension file names

    squaredancer wrote:

    > On 23.04.2006 23:13, CET - what odd quirk of fate caused Charlie
    > Mullins to generate the following:? :
    >>
    >> Reg, I was a computer programmer for 44 years, and I never named a
    >> folder anything like {6fd50e45-123b-4372-9b48-4a512b77c3e1}.
    >>

    > well, Charlie - you know then, what I mean!
    >
    > Have you also noticed that - even in the days of WIN XP - *some* people
    > haven*t gotten around to using other that 8.3 filenames?? As that went
    > out with WIN 95 (and I doubt very much the use of that old companion any
    > more) and hardly *any* XP-app is backwards compatible to WIN32-apps,
    > methinks those guys should get updated??


    Long filenames are fine as long as letters and numbers aren't mixed
    together -- I find it absolutely impossible to read or write those
    without an extraordinary amount of extra brain activity, but it's the
    use of extraneous punctuation AND SPACES that really drives me up the
    wall. Dots and dashes are TRULY all we need, and it's a pity that
    windows gets its panties in a wad if you use more than one dot in a
    filename.

    --
    Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx
    "If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared
    not only to retract it, but also to deny under oath that I
    ever said it." -- T. Lehrer

  11. Re: Extension file names

    The Real Bev wrote:


    it's a pity that
    > windows gets its panties in a wad if you use more than one dot in a
    > filename.
    >


    What version of windows have you been running? XP allows any number of
    dots in a filename, including consecutive ones. I haven't tried lead dots.

    --
    Irwin Greenwald - Mozilla Champion
    *Technical messages sent to my email address will be ignored*

    Etiquette - http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    OE Quotefix - http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

  12. Re: Extension file names

    T-bird Leader Irwin Greenwald radioed the tower On 4/24/2006 11:48 PM:

    > The Real Bev wrote:
    >
    >
    > it's a pity that
    >> windows gets its panties in a wad if you use more than one dot in a
    >> filename.
    >>

    >
    > What version of windows have you been running? XP allows any number of
    > dots in a filename, including consecutive ones. I haven't tried lead dots.
    >


    And Win ME also works properly with multiple periods used internally in a
    long file name. The critical requirement is that it end with a valid
    three letter file extension that Windows can use to correctly associate
    the file with an application. W2k and XP are both capable of full Unicode
    font support while Win 98SE and ME only have partial support. That means
    the XP could generate a file name that is invalid on my Win9X system.

    --
    Ron K.
    Don't be a fonted, it's just type casting.

  13. Re: Extension file names

    Irwin Greenwald wrote:

    > The Real Bev wrote:
    >
    >> it's a pity that
    >> windows gets its panties in a wad if you use more than one dot in a
    >> filename.

    >
    > What version of windows have you been running? XP allows any number of
    > dots in a filename, including consecutive ones. I haven't tried lead dots.


    Win2K. I copied over a file called file.new.1 or equivalent and it
    ended up being called file.1. No biggy, but it was surprising. If I'd
    been doing a lot of that it might have gotten ugly.

    --
    Cheers, Bev (Happy Linux User #85683, Slackware 10.2)
    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    "What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker

  14. Re: Extension file names

    The Real Bev wrote:
    > Irwin Greenwald wrote:
    >
    >> The Real Bev wrote:
    >>
    >>> it's a pity that
    >>> windows gets its panties in a wad if you use more than one dot in a
    >>> filename.

    >>
    >> What version of windows have you been running? XP allows any number
    >> of dots in a filename, including consecutive ones. I haven't tried
    >> lead dots.

    >
    > Win2K. I copied over a file called file.new.1 or equivalent and it
    > ended up being called file.1. No biggy, but it was surprising. If I'd
    > been doing a lot of that it might have gotten ugly.
    >


    There's a bug somewhere: it's supposed to work on Win2K.

    --
    Irwin Greenwald - Mozilla Champion
    *Technical messages sent to my email address will be ignored*

    Etiquette - http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    OE Quotefix - http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

+ Reply to Thread