

Add .txt As the Extension of Your Readme file - schrijver
http://i.liketightpants.net/and/it-might-be-a-unix-sin-but-i-would-like-you-to-add-dot-t-x-t-as-the-extension-of-your-readme-file

======
crazygringo
Interesting... most commenters here (so far) seem to be against the extension.

Can someone explain why? Except for executables, _all_ the files I use have
extensions -- .jpg, .html, .png, .mp3, .sh, and so on. Why should text files
be any different? "README" doesn't tell me if it's text, or markdown, or HTML,
or anything. Having ".txt" lets me know the format without opening it first to
see.

I just can't figure out why anyone would ever _not_ put a ".txt" extension on
a text file, when the entire consumer ecosystem of computing uses extensions
to help automate actions more usefully.

~~~
jfb
I hate them because they're an abstraction leak. The type of a file's content
is different from the application that I want to use to manipulate it, which
both are in turn different from the name I chose to give the file. That
current file systems and the GUI representations on top of them are so badly
designed as to confuse three unrelated concepts is a failing of software and
as clear an indication as you could ask for of the triumph of Worse Is Better.

~~~
drewcrawford
> are so badly designed

Why are they badly designed? There are a huge amount of bright OS hackers in
the world, and a huge amount of mindshare on the problem. When the culmination
of all this effort continues to be hilarious[1], I can only conclude that the
problem is less tractable than we expected.

And in fact, that is what the people who work on the problem say[2]: that it
is not tractable.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_hid_the_facts>

[2]
[http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/04/17/21583...](http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2007/04/17/2158334.aspx)

~~~
jfb
I'm not denying that fixing the problem requires a rethink. I guess I'm still
just feeling beat up by the removal of the admittedly imperfect first class
metadata from HFS in favor of file extensions. Roll that progress back, folks.
Make NFS happy.

EDIT: I don't believe that the problem is tractable in a world where you need
to maintain backwards compatibility; the solution then to me is ditch
backwards compatibility. I almost always prefer elegant solutions to practical
ones.

~~~
drewcrawford
> the solution then to me is ditch backwards compatibility.

Backwards compatibility is a visible problem, but it isn't the True Problem
with creatorcodes/metadata. The true problem is that a world with metadata is
an unstable equilibrium, because what if just this once we get it wrong.

* Consider the case that the file's author got it wrong

* Consider the case of Python and RPython (or .js and .json, or .txt and .md) where a file can belong to multiple classes. Further consider the case where a system has a Python interpreter but not an RPython interpreter installed (or a JavaScript interpreter but not a JSON parser, or a text editor but not a MarkDown editor, or...)

* Consider the case where a document was saved with Excel 2013, but just happens to only use Excel 2010 features, because who really cares about whatever the heck they add in each new Office release

* Consider the case of a container format, like mkv or mp4, that does not alone completely describe the format of the data it contains

* Consider the case of sometimes-interchangable formats like m4a and m4b, mp4 and m4v, etc.

* Consider the difference between a storage format (.sqlite3) and the data that it contains (.localstorage, Firefox/Profiles/places.sqlite, ~/Library/Mail/V2/MailData/Envelope Index)

* Consider the case that that one day somebody just wants to make a " _monkey-fighting_ file without filling out this _monday-to-friday_ questionnaire" and either the "no really, it's a file" creator code is accepted by the International Body of Creator Codes, or it isn't and so there are five incompatible implementations.

As soon as you tolerate any of these (and probably the list is a lot longer
than this), we are right back where we are now: trying to guess what kind of
file it is by poking at it with a stick. Backwards compatibility is a red
herring.

------
drcube
> An extension ‘txt’ also informs novice users about the role of these files:
> they are not programming code, they are primarily meant to be read.

If only the file name hinted at that fact...

~~~
walls
Using that logic, let's get rid of extensions entirely.

All applications from now on shall just be named EXECUTE.

~~~
drcube
Extensions should be for user convenience, not OS functionality. And files
should be assumed to be text unless otherwise specified. IMHO.

~~~
walls
So you're in favor of adding an extension to all executables, then?

------
troym
I will not: I will not allow the ignorance that spews from Redmond to infect
my software.

I will not: I will not cater to users with a broken OS.

I will not: I will not bother because it represents the minimal technical
hurdle for Windows users.

~~~
chc
What a facile display of false heroism. Ignoring users is the second easiest
thing in the world, right after declaring that you're too cool for Microsoft.
But this opinion has neither heart nor intellect behind it. It's pure
hipsterism — "Yeah, I'm above Microsoft and all the sheeple who use their
products!"

If you don't want to support Windows, that's cool. It's your choice. But don't
act like this is some great moral stance any more than companies refusing to
provide device drivers for Linux.

~~~
rafekett
The idea of a minimal technical hurdle is important in free software. If we
adapt everything from our free world to look just like the Windows world,
Windows users will never notice that there's something else better. It's
important that free software give itself some competitive advantage over
nonfree software, especially for its users.

~~~
chc
This is a much better-reasoned response. Like I said, excluding people is not
inherently unreasonable. You almost always have to exclude someone, and you're
free to define that "someone" in whatever way suits you best. But it isn't
something to make blustering declarations about, as though you're taking some
great moral stance — it's a practical choice that everyone has to make.

------
martin-adams
Forget adding a .txt to the end of a file. I want Notepad to understand \n.

~~~
stack0v3erfl0w
Wordpad does.

~~~
drivebyacct2
Wordpad since 7 is awful. Dreadful. Especially for the usecase of reading \n
EOL'd txt files.

------
drcube
Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better OS.

~~~
shocks
Oh shut up. The issue here is much more than just "Windows suckzzz!!!!". Get
off your high horse and stop being an OS elitist, it's pathetic.

edit: I now understand this is a reference to a comic that was published when
I was five years old. Hah.

~~~
drcube
Besides being a joke based off a classic Dilbert cartoon, Windows really is
broken, at least in this one specific area.

File extensions should only be used by people. The OS should have other ways
of knowing the file type. And ".txt" is redundant. The default assumption
should be "text" and only other file types should require extensions. IMHO.

~~~
shocks
Notice that I never disagreed with anyone on this. I also think that file
extensions are broken. My issue is that you (and a few others) lay the blame
solely on Redmond. The issue of file extensions goes far beyond Windows. Every
operating system is subject to them.

~~~
drivebyacct2
No actually, not really.

------
troni
No thanks. The files are not broken, your idea of needing to double-click the
file is the problem here.

~~~
koala_advert
Yea GUIs are stupid!

~~~
jfb
No, the idea that I don't own the file name is stupid. The goddamned computer
should figure out what data type the file contains.

~~~
stack0v3erfl0w
Until it has to figure out what data type files like this one contains
[http://code.google.com/p/corkami/downloads/detail?name=Corka...](http://code.google.com/p/corkami/downloads/detail?name=CorkaMIX.zip)

------
jfb
No. File extensions are stupid and broken.

~~~
VMG
Why? What's wrong with encoding metadata about the content in the filename?

~~~
jfb
Because it then prevents me from changing the filename the way I want to.
Because legacy garbage.

~~~
Shorel
In what operating system?

All my Windows and Linux systems let me change the filename, without selecting
the extension by default, and in the rare case that I want, I can change the
extension too, from the same interface.

------
ekyo777
although it doesn't seems to bring much I'm not against the .txt extension for
README but '.md.txt' feels like an horrid idea.

Maybe it's only me but I think it brings more confusion for pretty much no
gain. is it markdown ? is it a normal text file? is it a custom extension ?

~~~
micro-ram
.md is a special type of .txt file. Nothing wrong with having a README.md. Let
the OS have a default for reading .md files. In Windows that may be Notepad or
something completely specialized like markdownpad.com. If we are adding .txt
because the target is novice users, then you should have README.txt so they
can click on it.

------
arocks
In fact Winzip recognizes extension-less README files quite well. It shows
them in a different color and most users understand that it is something to be
viewed. The name 'README' is pretty obvious.

While we are at it, do we still need to use the three letter extensions which
are a legacy of the MS-DOS era and FAT filesystems? A couple of years down the
line, people would wonder why we tried to save one letter by typing 'txt'!

------
rafekett
I don't work on anything with a README that is for nontechnical users, and I
don't produce technical material for anything other than UNIX. No one I work
with that I care about pleasing uses it. I'd rather stick with the tried and
true convention.

------
futhey
While it may make logical sense to some people, the ultimate implication when
you see a .txt file is that the developer uses Windows. I'm not sure a lot of
developers are comfortable with that.

~~~
shocks
Your comment is ignorant. There is nothing wrong with a developer that uses
Windows and anyone who thinks similarly is equally ignorant.

~~~
vampirechicken
Right. I thought we were only supposed to hate Perl and PHP.

I can't keep up with the dogma...

------
Luc
Your principles VS hundreds of millions of instances where people are forced
to go through a right-click menu tree...

I think I'll choose the annoyance-reduction.

------
ultimoo
I don't know why the OP is a screenshot of github that is linked to github.
Maybe it is some new kind of link bait. Here is the content --

"But I really feel like these extensionless files are a bad idea for
usability. They look odd in Windows explorer, and they break Quicklook on Mac.

An extension ‘txt’ also informs novice users about the role of these files:
they are not programming code, they are primarily meant to be read."

~~~
niggler
"Maybe it is some new kind of link bait."

Ghostery shows one analytics package, Disconnect shows 4.

Trying to rack up pageviews for future ads?

------
BruceIV
This isn't _only_ of use to Windows users - lazy ZSH users can set up a suffix
alias for .txt, so that you can open README.txt just by typing its name, but
that doesn't work for files without extensions (like README).

------
niggler
Do people use README or README.md for README files formatted in markdown?

~~~
VeejayRampay
README.md or README.markdown which IIRC is the proper extension for markdown
files since .md had already been claimed by some other (now most likely
obscure) file format prior to Markdown's rise to stardom.

------
arrakeen
the quicklook problem on mac can be solved with this plugin:
<http://whomwah.github.io/qlstephen/>

------
silon5
IMO, using .txt extension is just fine and a good idea. But it will not help
until MS fixes their notepad to handle standard Unix text files.

------
joshguthrie
That's ironic coming from a site where the header appears in Comic Sans to me
because of some web font usage.

~~~
jasonlotito
> That's ironic coming from a site where the header appears in Comic Sans

Which is odd because the site doesn't use Comic Sans. If it's appearing as
Comic Sans to you, the problem is on your end.

Also, not sure how that makes it ironic.

~~~
joshguthrie
> appears in Comic Sans to me because of some web font usage Which I was
> admitting: this is on my end.

It's ironic because some opinions in this thread sounded like old-school "You
want .txt because of Micro$oft", exactly the Microsoft-bashing we were used to
read back then when websites where in Comic Sans.

------
blacktulip
README_FOR_WINDOWS_USERS.txt

~~~
ekyo777
I assume this would explain how to open an extensionless file? ;)

------
freeasinfree
READ.ME

