Rob, > You've made your position on file name extensions clear; but let me > ask this: Might it be a good idea to exclude extensions on files one > does NOT want the user to open by double-clicking?
Personally I don't think it's a good idea; IMHO it doesn't "say" anything about what *might* be in the file, so it causes the curious to probe further, and makes the others a bit skeptical about why the file is there in the first place. That said, if you just add an arbitrary extension that you aren't supporting (like Dar provided: "private_data.rob"), you never know if there's some other app out there using that extension, and thus it may look like it belongs to another program when it really doesn't. My personal opinion is that all files that are distributed with a program should have file extensions that are registered to the program. If you double-click on that is just a data holder and is not a "document", the program should still launch and then display a dialog saying something like: "Sorry, but this file is not editable." with an "Quit" button. This gets around both problems of (a) not having an extension at all and (b) providing one you're not trapping yourself. Just my $0.02, Ken Ray Sons of Thunder Software Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Site: http://www.sonsothunder.com/ _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
