Valent Turkovic wrote: > On 4/17/07, Michael Wiktowy <michael.wiktowy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> ogg is just the container format. It is able to contain both video >> (mainly theora codec) and audio (mainly vorbis codec). It is pretty >> flexible. >> >> /Mike > > Ok, I know that already. And if I was a "newbie" i probably wouldn't > even know how to find this mailing list. > > My point is how would you answer to this question to your > wife/girlfriend or brother/sister or even mother/father? That is the > base or my question! And there is no answer that is good enough > because there should be a CLEAR distinction in extension for ogg video > and audio files IMHO. > I guess I am missing something here - why would you be trying to explain file extensions to them in the first place? Would they be reading the file extension, or looking at the file icon to tell them what the file is? In any case, why does there need to be a clear distinction in the extension? You are talking A/V files... This is not the only case where a file with the same extension may be audio, video, or both. At lease it isn't as bad as when Real Audio decided to adopt the .rpm extension for their audio files after it was already in use by RPM... One other thing to keep in mind is that few file types in Linux are tied to their extension. While it is nice to have an extension that indicates the file type, there are too many file types that share the same extension. This is where mime types comes into play. Take a look at /etc/mime-magic for an idea of how it works. If a program is relying on the extension instead of the mime type to tell what a file is, then the programmer didn't do his/her/its job correctly. (I can see using the extension as a shortcut in deciding what types to check firs, but don't depend on it.) Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
