On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > On Tue 17 Nov 2015 at 13:08:49 -0500, shawn wilson wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Chris Bannister >> <cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote: >> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 09:31:53AM -0500, shawn wilson wrote: >> >> On Nov 16, 2015 5:37 PM, "Lisi Reisz" <lisi.re...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > department has been trying for an hour". Puzzled, because I thought I >> >> > had >> >> > sent a .pdf, and had checked that it opened fine in Evince, I looked at >> >> the >> >> > file - groaned - and renamed scan-foo to scan-foo.pdf. When resent it >> >> >> >> communicated (via its extension). If you create a pdf, it is bad to not >> >> have the pdf extension - you've lost data. >> > >> > How have you lost data? >> >> You loose what the file type (data) should be if you save a file w/o >> an extension. Again, this is fine for an installed program (no one >> cares as long as it works) but not so good for data that is processed >> by another program or a script I want to edit. > > You would have to give a specific example where a file processed by a > program or script fails to open for this argument to be convincing, You > also have to distinguish between data in the file and information the > extension conveys to the program. >
How about just that vim filetype relies on the filename to determine the format? I suspect there are other examples where an extension might be *required* such as compression, but other than Windows, IDK off hand.
