Talk:List of filename extensions: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
consideration of DEC's RAD50 notation |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
No, but maybe the other way around. List of file formats (alphabetical) has the clear purpose given in the name. [[Windows file types]] is a small subset and I'm not quite sure what its purpose is, does not Windows recognize more file types? List of file formats (alphabetical) does have the disadvantage of being very long. Maybe it should be broken down into one article per letter or group of letters as the similar article in the German wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Dateinamenserweiterungen --[[User:Theosch|Theosch]] ([[User talk:Theosch|talk]]) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) |
No, but maybe the other way around. List of file formats (alphabetical) has the clear purpose given in the name. [[Windows file types]] is a small subset and I'm not quite sure what its purpose is, does not Windows recognize more file types? List of file formats (alphabetical) does have the disadvantage of being very long. Maybe it should be broken down into one article per letter or group of letters as the similar article in the German wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Dateinamenserweiterungen --[[User:Theosch|Theosch]] ([[User talk:Theosch|talk]]) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
Any discussion of the file suffix, or extension, should include reference to Digital Eqpts, Rad50 notation, which is why the great body of extensions are limited to three characters. Rad50, or more properly RAD50 was an encoding scheme to put 3 characters into 16 bits. 26 letters, 10 digits, and sufficient other characters, excluding i believe the period (.), slash (/) and bs (\\), since they are part of the filename delimiters, and hence could NOT be part of the suffix are the 50 potential suffix characters (if not part of the name). So 50^3rd/ 2 (somehow) = 62500, which fits in a 16 bit binary. |
|||
Windows is merely a "johnny-come-lately" adopter of this scheme as well. |
|||
[[User:Applemcg|Applemcg]] ([[User talk:Applemcg|talk]]) 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[[User:applemcg]] |
|||
Revision as of 01:31, 27 August 2009
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 7 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
No archives yet.
|
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
This is a useful page - I have a bookmark directly to it - so why on Earth is it
marked for deletion?
Paul Taylor (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
It is useful and should not be merged with Windows file types. I just added an extension pertaining only to Linux. Redrabbit2 (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No, but maybe the other way around. List of file formats (alphabetical) has the clear purpose given in the name. Windows file types is a small subset and I'm not quite sure what its purpose is, does not Windows recognize more file types? List of file formats (alphabetical) does have the disadvantage of being very long. Maybe it should be broken down into one article per letter or group of letters as the similar article in the German wikipedia. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Dateinamenserweiterungen --Theosch (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Any discussion of the file suffix, or extension, should include reference to Digital Eqpts, Rad50 notation, which is why the great body of extensions are limited to three characters. Rad50, or more properly RAD50 was an encoding scheme to put 3 characters into 16 bits. 26 letters, 10 digits, and sufficient other characters, excluding i believe the period (.), slash (/) and bs (\\), since they are part of the filename delimiters, and hence could NOT be part of the suffix are the 50 potential suffix characters (if not part of the name). So 50^3rd/ 2 (somehow) = 62500, which fits in a 16 bit binary.
Windows is merely a "johnny-come-lately" adopter of this scheme as well. Applemcg (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)User:applemcg