RE: [Bug-gnubg] PNG Export

[Albert Silver]

-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Gary
Wong
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:07 PM
To: 'GNUBackgammon bug reporting'
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] PNG Export

On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 01:58:24PM +0100, Jim Segrave wrote:
> I agree with this summary. The majority of gnubg users probably aren't
> "computer literate" and as gnubg improves in features and ease of use
> under Windows, this is going to become more the case. Wherever
> possible, gnubg should "do the right thing" by default, and, as the
> majority of users will be running some version of Windows, it should
> default to adding extensions.

Perhaps... but the primary target for GNU Backgammon (and all GNU
software, for that matter) is the GNU system (see
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_27.html, for example).  Other free
systems (e.g. *BSD) are generally worth supporting, but portability to
(and usability on) proprietary systems such as Solaris or MS Windows
is very much a secondary issue.

Interoperability and consistency with other GNU software is an
important goal (see http://www.gnu.org/evaluation/evaluation.html).
So it seems clear that on the GNU system, gnubg should not try to
enforce/recommend file naming conventions, nor should its behaviour
depend on the way a file is named, since the GNU system generally
does not operate that way.
--------------------------------------------------

Would adding extensions actually be problematic for other systems? I
understand that it isn't essential for Unix systems, but would it
actually be a problem? I ask because your argument makes it sound as if
by adding this convenience to Windows users, users of other systems will
suffer for it.

                                                Albert