Re: [Speex-dev] Re: [xiph-rtp] Re: Proposal: An extension to rules all others

(What list should this be on?  I realise some of these lists are
to get attention from slightly peripheral groups, but should it
be moved to ogg-dev/advocacy?)

On 17/01/07, Tom Grandgent <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry, but I think generic extension names are far from perfect.  Here
> are some additional problems to consider:
>

<snip perfectly sensible objections>
The reason I made the suggestions I did is that extensions aren't really
a technical issue, except for one (unfortunately major) player which I'm
led to believe needs to be told content type through the extension, but
a PR one. So what needs to be considered is how well the extensions
communicate.

> Finally, I disagree with your assessment of .oga/.ogv on all counts.
> Three letter extensions are good for many reasons: easy to display,
> easy to read, easy to type, and overall it's a familiar, consistent,
> and tried-and-true approach.  I also don't see how they're hard to
> remember (people are quite used to remembering TLAs), especially if
> they follow a logical and consistent naming convention like .oga/.ogv.
>

They're not hard to remember, if you have to remember them.
Most people don't seem to, and shouldn't really have to.

-- 
imalone