Re: [Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file system, proposed extension "JON".

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Sun, 21 May 2017 15:44 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56979.80.212.78.253.1495263849.squirrel@epost.powertech.no>
References: <56979.80.212.78.253.1495263849.squirrel@epost.powertech.no>
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2017 11:43:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2gp_QJ=o2jGQuqhLK1+PdfOuBKd7b2_0voWqQ73ufefLEGVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: bnossum@norwia.no
Cc: json@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114a4efaad6be105500a9fa1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/json/csv5NTIpt32aQtaWnjoR4j1bAOg>
Subject: Re: [Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file system, proposed extension "JON".
Precedence: list

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 3:04 AM, <bnossum@norwia.no> wrote:

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to specify the file extension ".JON"
> for old FAT file systems?  I realize that this problem will eventually go
> away, but probably not for a good many years.
>

I think "JSN" would be better because more recognizable (cnsnnts r mr
rcgnzbl thn vwels).  In OS/8, a good extension would be JN, to avoid
collision with JS for JavaScript.

-- 
John Cowan          http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan        cowan@ccil.org
It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held sway in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
        --LOTR, "The Passage of the Marshes"

[Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file system… bnossum
Re: [Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file sy… John Cowan
Re: [Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file sy… Phillip Hallam-Baker
Re: [Json] JSON files in old-time DOS 8.3 file sy… Phillip Hallam-Baker