"Tim Starling" <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org> wrote in
message news:efsjf0$a34$1@sea.gmane.org...
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
[snip]
Extensions are just too inflexible to match up with reality... Ogg
isn't at all the only container to give up on that.. for example, what
extension does a PDF of layed out ascii have? A PDF of scanned pages?
A PDF of postscript algorithms that computes fractals?
Nonsense, there are three types of ogg: audio, video and weird rubbish
that
nobody cares about. To use a different extension to
one of these brings
instant usability benefits to a large volume of users.
And there is no reason NOT to use different extensions. For example, on my
machine I have associated .a95 with Access 95, .a97 with Access 97 and .a2k
with Access 2000. I have no .mdb files (the native file extension). Aside
from having to select 'all files' instead of 'MS Access Databases' when
opening a file there is no disadvantage, but it makes things a lot easier
and clearer, and it means the right application opens when I double-click
the file.
I _could_ name my .ogg video files .ogv and (after updating the file
associations) have a much easier-to-use system.
OR this standard could be adopted globally and make _everyone's_ life
easier.
I see no problem in .oga = audio, .ogv = video, .ogg = everything else
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)