> In other operating systems an extension is not needed. I use Linux here, > which does not need the extension. I also used OS/2, for many years and > again the file extension is not necessary. It's only Windows that's > crippled in this regard. >
What Linux is that which does not need the filename extension? Both KDE and Gnome need the filename extension to know to open the file with Open Office. I suppose if you work with the cli you could run "file" on the file to know what type of file it is, then open the file directly from the cli with the soffice command. I personally find it easier to use the convention of using a filename extension. Doubly so as KDE will then know to open the file with OOo. Looking in my home directory now, I have eye-test.odt and eye-test.png (an image I created specifically to add to eye-test.odt). What should I have named those files under your naming convention? For that matter, what is the advantage of your no-extension naming convention? -- Dotan Cohen http://bido.com http://what-is-what.com Please CC me if you want to be sure that I read your message. I do not read all list mail. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
