On Sunday, 29 November 2015 at 06:03:21 UTC, Poyeyo wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 23:38:35 UTC, UserAbcabc123
wrote:
On Saturday, 28 November 2015 at 22:00:32 UTC, Poyeyo wrote:
Dubconf seems to me a good replacement name for the format.
Hilarous, I guess you didn't read the topic at all...
I've read it all. But I'm not joining the group in arguing
against the format. And yes, someone said .dubconf should be an
analog for.
DUB people can't change the format name. They are not the SDL
authors.
This is what I find hilarous because let's say 12 pages before
there's been a misunderstanding caused by the fact that some
people thought the format is propietary, thus DUB people have
have been unfairly blamed...
The whole discussion is not about the file extention. The File
extention is not a problem at all, the discussion was more about
the format itself.
