• Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Thank God they went with file name extensions so we didn’t have to preface every source .txt file with header content to instruct the editor about what kind of content it would have.

        • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 hour ago

          For HTML, it’s to distinguish “standards mode” HTML from “quirks mode” HTML (which doesn’t need a header).

        • cron@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          Because both ways are used. Microsoft relies on file names, linux on the first bytes of the file.

          • Consti@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            edit-2
            14 hours ago

            Not quite correct. For html, that is to signal standard compliance, you can leave it away and the browser will still handle it. For the bash one, all (most) shell scripts use .sh, so you need to give a shebang to tell the loader which executable (sh, bash, zsh, csh, …) to use

            Also on Linux xdg does take file extensions into account, just executables do not

        • Kairos@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          Nothing unless you want to serve them without some other way to see what file type they are.

          You can run bash scripts with bash.

          Don’t know what a desktop file is.

          HTML has that because webservers used to not have auto media type detection and response headers.