2007/4/7, Alex Jones <alex@weej.com>:> > On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:49 +0200, Harry Sack wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I have read somewhere there exist 2 extensions for FLAC files: .flac > > and .fla > > Why is this and what's the difference between them? > > Nothing. File name extensions don't mean anything. Don't be confused > into thinking that they do - they are simply part of the file name.yes I know this, but my question is: why do they make different file extensions to FLAC files then if they mean nothing? (I had better formulated my question like this) thx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/flac/attachments/20070407/0b367d25/attachment.html
Harry Sack wrote:> yes I know this, but my question is: why do they make different file > extensions to FLAC files then if they mean nothing? (I had better > formulated my question like this)DOS? -Eric
Harry Sack wrote:> 2007/4/7, Alex Jones <alex@weej.com>: >> >> On Sat, 2007-04-07 at 17:49 +0200, Harry Sack wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I have read somewhere there exist 2 extensions for FLAC files: .flac >> > and .fla >> > Why is this and what's the difference between them? >> >> Nothing. File name extensions don't mean anything. Don't be confused >> into thinking that they do - they are simply part of the file name. > > > > yes I know this, but my question is: why do they make different file > extensions to FLAC files then if they mean nothing? (I had better > formulated > my question like this)Because some ancient DOS/Windows filesystems didn't support filename extensions of more than three characters. And this limitation still ripples through the DOS/Windows/Microsoft world. There are many examples of this; htm vs. html, jpg vs. jpeg, mpg vs. mpeg, etc, etc...