Talk:Filename
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] "File name" vs "Filename"
Should filename be one or two words? There seem to be no strict convention; google finds 20M pages containing "file name" and 30M pages containing "filename". This indicates that "filename" is a slightly better choice, but still, over 400 articles in wikipedia contain the subword "file name". How is it possible to know which variant to consider correct? Who decides? --Erik 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've seen it both ways. I think that generally "filename" should be used when discussing the name entity itself (e.g., "this filename and that filename"), while "file name" should be used when discussing different types of names (e.g., "file names and directory names").
— Loadmaster 16:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible inaccuracies
The table currently states that a DOS filename has up to 12 characters. Surely 11. The stop or period separating the primary filename from its extension isn't an actual part of the filename.
UNIX is said to allow filenames of up to 255 or 256 characters. This hasn't always been the case, has it? It would be a good idea to distinguish by UNIX version number, as the table does with Mac and Windows versions. I think UNIX used to have a much smaller limit (somewhere between 12 and 20).-86.134.90.94 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Forward slash (/) on Windows
Shouldn't the forward slash on windows be included, because when I create a file I cannot create one with a forward slash. And windows (2000) response with: "A filename cannot contain any of the following characters: \/:*?"<>|
- I added the forward slash, and the pipe (both were already included, but not displayed).
- I had to change pipe into HTML #124, and put the Slash at the end.
- Both appear now correctly (I only edited the Win95 and winXP entries: please someone check also the DOS and FAT sections?)
- 82.196.52.11 16:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC) olivier Dulac
[edit] Other File Systems
The article contains no mention of non-Unix filesystems. It would be nice if it included mention of historical systems (e.g., DEC RSX-11) and ISO 9660 CD naming conventions.
— Loadmaster 20:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- For information on various file systems, Unix and non-Unix, see Comparison of file systems, which mentions both Files-11 ODS-2 and ODS-5. The section giving file system details was somewhat incomplete - Comparison of file systems was more complete - and a bit confused for various reasons, including mixing up operating systems naming rules and file system naming rules (which aren't necessarily the same - a given file system might support names that an OS on which you're using it doesn't, and an OS might support names that a particular file system it can use doesn't). I got rid of that section. Guy Harris 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
