OK. Starting from next release, we'll use the convention that the file extension is the part after the last period of a basename.
Trevor Nash wrote: > > Hussein Shafie wrote: >> The file extension of "test.image.jpg" is considered to be "image.jpg" >> and not "jpg". And, of course, "image.jpg" is an unsupported format. >> >> This seems stupid because, in your case, the file extension is obviously >> "jpg". But in the general case, this is not always true. Example: >> xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar.gz (the file extension is "tar.gz" and not "gz") >> >> > No, the extension is gz which tells you that this is a compressed file. > Because the file type tells you that there is another file within, then > you can look at that extension and see that it is tar - so you have a > compressed archive. > > That may lead you to say that the extension is 'tar.gz' but this is > imprecise and misleading because you can only say this because you know > what the file types are (i.e. what the extension means). Consider the > equally sensible filename (in Unix at least) of xxe-perso-4.1.0.tar.gz. > Is the extension still tar.gz or 1.0.tar.gz? >> Therefore, we are currently not 100% sure that this problem needs to fixed. >> >> >> > In my own products I always treat the file extension as the part after > the *last *period, not the first. Given the above isn't this the only > robust way to do it? > > (Aside - I just looked in Windows at the file types, and though there > are none with periods in you can add one. I have not experimented to > see if this actually works, especially in the case where the 'smaller' > extension already exists - does it recognise x.tar.gz as gz or tar.gz? > But then experiments are a poor second to clear thinking when it comes > to design IMHO. It is certainly true that Windows recognises x.y.jpg as > a JPEG file and not an unknown type.) > Jean Jordan wrote: > > Hussein Shafie wrote: >> But in the general case, this is not always true. Example: >> > xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar.gz (the file extension is "tar.gz" and not "gz") > > I don't agree. A .tar.gz file has first been tarred and then been gzipped. For > gunzip xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar.gz > the output will be xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar > Then you can do > tar -xf xxe-perso-4_1_0.tar > and the tarball will be unpacked. > > 'tar -xzf' just does both steps for you. > > Of course file extensions are merely convention, and you can mix them > up as you want, but in this case we have two extensions, not a single > dotted one. >
