Am Dienstag, den 10.05.2011, 19:07 +0200 schrieb Jochen Topf: > I would be relatively straightforward to use .osc.pbf and .osh.pbf for the > (still to be specified) PBF versions of those files. > > Or we could remove that strangeness and use some other scheme: > .bosm, .bosc, .bosh (b for binary) ? > .pbf, .pbfc, .pbfh ? > > Opinions? Ideas? I'd vote for not changing the well established .osm.pbf but rather live with this strangeness. It's already written on dozends of wiki-pages and in lots of applications. Thus I'd vote for .osc and .osc.pbf.
Frederik mentioned mime-types, I'd suggest (not knowing if I'd break any convention using multiple + symbols): application/x-osm+xml for .osm application/x-osm+xml+bzip2 for .osm.bz2 application/x-osm+pbf for .osm.pbf application/x-osh+xml for .osh application/x-osh+xml+bzip2 for .osh.bz2 application/x-osh+pbf for .osh.pbf application/x-osc+xml for .osc application/x-osc+xml+bzip2 for .osc.bz2 application/x-osc+pbf for .osc.pbf Peter _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
