On 12/11/23 07:12, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2023-12-10 15:51:02 -0500, Pocket wrote:
On Dec 10, 2023, at 3:05 PM, David Wright<deb...@lionunicorn.co.uk> wrote:
¹ Re the argument raging in this thread about "extension", the
term is clearly appropriate, as a glance at /etc/mime.types
demonstrates. The literature is full of the term.
I wouldn't want to use "suffix" myself, as it's too general:
anything stuck on the end is a suffix, but not necessarily
a filename extension. Suffixes are used for other purposes.
Suffix is the correct term.
A filename extension is a suffix, but a suffix (e.g. as in POSIX)
is not necessarily a filename extension.
Not in the microsoft world, it is REQUIRED and that is what the OS needs
to tell what kind of file it is dealing with. Unix/Linux has no
resrictions.
For instance:
$ basename foobar bar
foo
Here, "bar" is a suffix, but it does not have the form of a
filename extension.
No bar is part of the filespec
So the notion of "filename extension" is more specific
No it is microsoft non sense
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man4/magic.4.html
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/working-with-magic-numbers-in-linux/
https://www.darwinsys.com/file/
