Testing the waters for text/troff

[Bruce Lilly]

On Fri November 26 2004 17:47, ned.freed at mrochek.com wrote:

> HTML files are a lot more uquitous than nroff files and they make do with the
> TEXT type.
[...]
> > > The fact of the matter is that file type codes are far less ideosyncratic in
> > > their behavior, specification, and handling than file name extensions are.
> 
> > They're idiosyncratic to the extent that they apply only to
> > one particular OS (several versions) on one particular
> > hardware platform, with obscure documentation not
> > amenable to search by non-Apple media type registrants.
> > File name "extensions" are another matter, and I have a
> > paragraph written about them.
> 
> File name extensions are in fact far more ideosyncratic. Not only does their
> meaning vary widely from one OS to the next,

Clearly Mac OS file type codes only apply to one OS, and are
meaningless for all other OSes. I.e. their meaning varies
from none to some from one OS to the next.

> they vary from version to version 
> and even from application to application. As a result there  are numerous
> conflicts and inconsistencies. Not only is it impossible to determine what
> extension to use for a given object in all cases,

It seems to be impossible to determine what Mac OS file type code
to use for a given object (e.g. the case in point).

> it is impossible to say what 
> a given extension means in all cases.

Given your statement regarding HTML and "TEXT", it sounds like
that's also the case for Mac OS file type codes; it appears that
sometimes "TEXT" means plain text and sometimes it means HTML.
 
> If similar issues exist for Mac file type codes I am unaware of them.

See above.
 
> There is not now and never has been any requirement that such information be
> provided as part of any registration.

Yes, I overstated the case. Sorry.