<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Keith's Weblog: Comments on &quot;File extensions on the web&quot;</title>
		<description>Keith's Weblog: Comments on &quot;File extensions on the web&quot;, posted on May 1, 2004</description>
		<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2004/May/01/file-ext.web</link>
		<language>en-us</language>
		

		<item>
			<title>by Alan Green</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2004/May/01/file-ext.web#comment4476</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/4877#comment4476</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2004 20:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;It's nice if URLs make a certain amount of sense, because people look at them in the browser location bar. Since a '.html' or '.jpeg' can help people figure out what they are looking at, then they should be used. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;The real travesty with &amp;quot;file extensions&amp;quot; on URLs is that some browsers (IE at least) will use the extension to determine the content type, ignoring the HTTP content-type header.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;PS: What does &amp;quot;.web&amp;quot; mean? &lt;img class=&quot;smiley&quot; src=&quot;/images/smiley_side.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Smiley&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>by Keith</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2004/May/01/file-ext.web#comment4477</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/4877#comment4477</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2004 21:04:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;blockquote class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;What does &amp;quot;.web&amp;quot; mean?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Heh, nothing. It's part of the slug &lt;img class=&quot;smiley&quot; src=&quot;/images/smiley_side.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Smiley&quot; /&gt; I use periods to separate words in the slug sometimes, a practice I got from CNN. It just as easily could have been &amp;quot;web.file-ext&amp;quot;. Though, your question was probably rhetorical, so now I probably look silly answering it &lt;img class=&quot;smiley&quot; src=&quot;/images/smiley_side.gif&quot; alt=&quot;Smiley&quot; /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;The real question I have is... do you think I should put a .xml on my RSS (and later, Atom) feeds?&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>by Dinx</title>
			<link>http://keithdevens.com/weblog/archive/2004/May/01/file-ext.web#comment4478</link>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://keithdevens.com/weblog/4877#comment4478</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2004 21:56:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<description>&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;In my opinion, the use of &amp;quot;filename extensions&amp;quot; is a prehisthoric artifact introduced by &amp;quot;MS-DOS&amp;quot; some decades ago.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Yes, it could make some sense for the user to be able to determine the type of file he is dealing with. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;But using a &amp;quot;filename extension&amp;quot;? Have a look at the Macs. They don't neet such a crap.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;What &lt;em&gt;I&lt;/em&gt; would like to have would rather be some kind of &amp;quot;general classifaction system&amp;quot; for files. I.e. one can add &amp;quot;attributes&amp;quot; to file-names and assign those attributes certain values. Platform independent ... of course.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;So, for example: the .TXT file could be described as:&lt;br /&gt;
- Content=Text&lt;br /&gt;
- Charset=Ansi&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;an .EXE as&lt;br /&gt;
- Content=Program&lt;br /&gt;
- Executable=Yes&lt;br /&gt;
- Platform=Intel&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;.HTML&lt;br /&gt;
- Content=Web&lt;br /&gt;
- Charset=Blah  (or ISOblub, etc)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;I dont know if you get my idea ... what I am trying to say is: a simple crappy filename-extension will NEVER be enough to classify its content (when looking at the MEANING, the TECHNOLOGY, the VERSION and and and ...)&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p class=&quot;st-markup&quot;&gt;Imho it is necessary to establish some kind of &amp;quot;generic classification system&amp;quot; for .... ressources (not only for files ... not even only for files on the web! ... but in general!!)&lt;/p&gt;

</description>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
