[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: *.mid vs *.midi
From: |
CDon |
Subject: |
Re: *.mid vs *.midi |
Date: |
Thu, 15 May 2008 06:58:14 -0700 (PDT) |
Valentin Villenave wrote:
>
> Windows users seem to
> believe that .mid is more legitimate than .midi, but non-MS users are
> used to non-three-letters extensions.
>
It is not a matter of belief but rather a matter of practicality... Many
applications that import MIDI files for post processing (for example, BIAB
or Jammer Pro) will not accept .midi as a valid extension. Their internal
'filtering' will just not allow import.
The use of a batch file along the lines proposed by Karl should provide a
satisfactory workaround. Thanks Karl.
Don
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/*.mid-vs-*.midi-tp17235029p17253856.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
- *.mid vs *.midi, Don Whitener, 2008/05/14
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Karl Hammar, 2008/05/14
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Valentin Villenave, 2008/05/14
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, CDon, 2008/05/14
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Karl Hammar, 2008/05/15
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Valentin Villenave, 2008/05/15
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Reinhold Kainhofer, 2008/05/15
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi,
CDon <=
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool), 2008/05/15
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Karl Hammar, 2008/05/15
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Michael David Crawford, 2008/05/16
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Graham Percival, 2008/05/16
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool), 2008/05/16
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Karl Hammar, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, Hans Aberg, 2008/05/17
- Re: *.mid vs *.midi, immanuel litzroth, 2008/05/17