Subject:
|
Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:48:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1321 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Don Heyse wrote:
>
> > How about replacing the .dat extension with the pattern number for these
> > filenames? (Something like 3626bp.101)
>
> I'd rather not encode file-nameish data into the file-extension. That
> feels like a bad thing to do -- extensions indicate the *type* of file, not
> the specific file.
True, but since these are merely parts files and as such will reside in the
LDRAW\PARTS directory, I think the *type* of file will be obvious. I agree
this certainly feels like a "bad thing" at first, but it does give you a lot
more characters to work with in the filename without sacrificing compatibility.
> I realize that "DAT" is not the greatest extension in the world, as it's
> far too generic. But, it's better than not having a recognizable filetype
> extension at all.
Yes, but do you really need the DAT extension on ALL the parts files? I think
it's much more important to have it on the model files which are what most
people are sharing. I guess it comes down to how often do people doubleclick
on a part file (or drag it into an app) versus a model file? I don't think
clicking on the [DAT] link on lugnet counts since that uses CGI rather than
the file extension to convey content type?
Don
Don
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Patterned Parts Numbering
|
| (...) I'd rather not encode file-nameish data into the file-extension. That feels like a bad thing to do -- extensions indicate the *type* of file, not the specific file. I realize that "DAT" is not the greatest extension in the world, as it's far (...) (24 years ago, 19-Oct-00, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
25 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
