Is This an "rtf" or "csv" File?

[Marc Rochkind]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 02:42:21 GMT, Terry <a@b.c> wrote:

>
> My application creates a file that is both an rtf (Rich Text Format) file
> and a csv (Comma Separated Values) file.

How can it be both?

>
> What should the file extension be? .rtf or .csv?

Will tell you later...

>
> Any opinions will be appreciated.

The Rockies won/lost record may be the best in years, but they've still got
a long way to go.

>
> Thank you.

You're welcome!

--Marc

[Rich Teer]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Terry wrote:

> My application creates a file that is both an rtf (Rich Text Format) file
> and a csv (Comma Separated Values) file.

How can it be both?

> What should the file extension be? .rtf or .csv?

It doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't do silly things like
interpret the meanings of file extensions (unlike certain
poor excuses for operating systems that come from Redmond).
You can call them .myfunkyformat for all UNIX cares.

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: [url]http://www.rite-online.net[/url]

[Marc Rochkind]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 03:32:58 GMT, Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com>
wrote:

[snip]

>
> It doesn't matter. UNIX doesn't do silly things like
> interpret the meanings of file extensions (unlike certain
> poor excuses for operating systems that come from Redmond).
> You can call them .myfunkyformat for all UNIX cares.
>

If by "UNIX" you mean the kernel, I suppose that's right. But, there's lots
of stuff above the kernel level that comes up a lot is this newsgroup. Like
compilers, web servers, makefiles, etc., all of which interpret the part of
the file name after the dot.

Suffixes (.c, .o, .y, .l, etc.) have been in "UNIX" since the earliest
days...

--Marc

[those who know me have no need of my name]

in comp.unix.programmer i read:

>My application creates a file that is both an rtf (Rich Text Format) file
>and a csv (Comma Separated Values) file.

i do not believe this is possible, but ...

>What should the file extension be? .rtf or .csv?

why does it matter? this is unix, we don't need no stinking extensions.
(not that file is likely to know what to make of it.)

--
a signature

[Marc Rochkind]

On 07 Aug 2003 05:26:34 GMT, those who know me have no need of my name
<not-a-real-address@usa.net> wrote:

[snip]

>
> why does it matter? this is unix, we don't need no stinking extensions.
> (not that file is likely to know what to make of it.)
>

I'm baffled by this comment, as well as a similar one from Rich Teer.
"Extensions" have been heavily used in UNIX for over 30 years!

--Marc

[Måns Rullgård]

Marc Rochkind <rochkind@basepath.com> writes:

>> why does it matter? this is unix, we don't need no stinking extensions.
>> (not that file is likely to know what to make of it.)
>>

>
>
> I'm baffled by this comment, as well as a similar one from Rich
> Teer. "Extensions" have been heavily used in UNIX for over 30 years!

True, but they are not used in the same way as in mswindows. Imagine
the confusion that resulted when someone at my university posted some
FrameMaker documents with filenames ending in .doc.

--
Måns Rullgård
[email]mru@users.sf.net[/email]

[Marc Rochkind]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:28:31 +0200, Måns Rullgård
<mru@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

[snip]

>
> True, but they are not used in the same way as in mswindows. Imagine
> the confusion that resulted when someone at my university posted some
> FrameMaker documents with filenames ending in .doc.
>

I still don't follow! UNIX systems have upper-level application
environments (KDE, Mac OS X) that treat suffixes (or extensions) EXACTLY as
in Windows. For example, in KDE, if you double-click on a file, it attempts
to open it based on its suffix.

The confusion you refer to happens in UNIX, too.

(The Macintosh does it right. Every file can have a resource fork that is a
collection of attributes. UNIX does it wrong, and Windows copied the UNIX
approach!)

--Marc

[Terry]

Thanks Erik,

Now, what if it is a unicode text file containing comma separated values?
Would you argue that it should be .utx?

Thanks.



on 8/6/03 9:59 PM, Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Terry wrote:
>

>> You mean it can't be both? Its a csv file who's text encoding is rtf.
>> Put
>> another way, its an rtf file that contains comma separated values.

>
> In that case it's an .rtf file. If you wanted to be clever, you could
> call it a .csv.rtf.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis && [email]max@alcyone.com[/email] && [url]http://www.alcyone.com/max/[/url]
> __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
> / \ It's a man's world, and you men can have it.
> \__/ Katherine Anne Porter

[Erik Max Francis]

Terry wrote:

> Now, what if it is a unicode text file containing comma separated
> values?
> Would you argue that it should be .utx?

Probably .csv.

Remember that filename extensions mean much less in Unix systems than
they do in other operating systems, like DOS/Windows. In Unix they're
more for convenience for _you_, and applications you use; they mean
nothing significant to the operating system itself.

Consequently, there's no special meaning to a Unix file ending in .txt
other than that it's probably a text file. Whether it's ASCII, Latin-1,
UTF-8, UTF-16, etc. is completely up to you and whatever applications
you want to use with it. Most applications are far more lenient with
file extensions on Unix than on, say, Windows, simply because they have
much less significant internal meaning on Unix. (Yes, of course they're
used on Unix, but they are not _mandated_ in the same way they are in
Windows.)

--
Erik Max Francis && [email]max@alcyone.com[/email] && [url]http://www.alcyone.com/max/[/url]
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ All I know is / I need you in my life
\__/ India Arie

[Rich Teer]

On Thu, 7 Aug 2003, Erik Max Francis wrote:

> > values?
> > Would you argue that it should be .utx?

>
> Probably .csv.

I think the OP should just use the generic ".dat" and be
done with it. :-)

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: [url]http://www.rite-online.net[/url]

[Russell Shaw]

Marc Rochkind wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 17:28:31 +0200, Måns Rullgård
> <mru@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]

>>
>> True, but they are not used in the same way as in mswindows. Imagine
>> the confusion that resulted when someone at my university posted some
>> FrameMaker documents with filenames ending in .doc.
>>

> I still don't follow! UNIX systems have upper-level application
> environments (KDE, Mac OS X)

These are only *applications*, *not* the OS.

> that treat suffixes (or extensions) EXACTLY
> as in Windows.

No. The concept of extension interpretation is more tightly bound
to the operating system in windoze.

> For example, in KDE, if you double-click on a file, it
> attempts to open it based on its suffix.