On 25-Feb-2005/21:07 -0500, Jim Cornette <fc-cornette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >I do think the filename extension should be what the file format >actually is. But to each their own style. Probably sending the document >as html would be acceptable practice for a future employer to screen. The issue is sending a resume to an HR weenie who may not even be able to spell HTML. They use Word and they expect a Word doc. Giving them something unexpected is counter-productive (**you** are the one who needs a job). So I gave them something that walks like a DOC and quacks like a DOC, so as far as they're concerned, it's a DOC. Philosophical debates about filenames is all fine, well, and good, but in this case, the object was to solve a problem. The then-current version of SO/OOo had some font issues that I did not want to risk biting me, so I used good old reliable HTML. I do not advocate this as **the** solution to sending DOC in all cases. I just pointed out what I'd done when I needed a working solution. Tony -- Anthony E. Greene <mailto:Anthony%20E.%20Greene%20%3Ctony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx%3E> AOL/Yahoo Messenger: TonyG05 HomePage: <http://www.greene-family.org/tony/> OpenPGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26 C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D Linux. The choice of a GNU generation <http://www.linux.org/>
