"File types"

[Don]

Teo Zenios wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre at floodgap.com>
> To: <cctalk at classiccmp.org>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 6:30 PM
> Subject: Re: "File types"
> 
> 
>>>> However, when storing Mac files on, say, a FAT volume, a hidden folder
> is
>>>> made to hold the additional data in the resource fork. This includes
>>>> type/creator information.
>>> Ah, OK.  So the OS already has provisions to handle it and
>>> hides those details from the user.  I.e. it does the things
>>> I was insinuating the user would have to do, manually.
>> Yes, it's totally transparent. This was very nice for taking 3.5" disks
>> between my IIsi and the DOS PCs at work back when I sneakernetted
> everything.
> 
> On a FAT volume the fork gets stripped away, so taking the file and putting
> it back on the Mac without the resource fork the Mac OS will not know what
> to do with it (ruins the file).

Well, there seems to be some disagreement here (?)  :>
{I'll let you guys finesse the details...)

But, that's not material to my question.  I really don't
care how Mac's handle different file systems, etc.  My
interest in them was only as an example of a system that
did NOT fold "type information" into the namespace for
files.

Yet, it *seems* that even they are following the Lemmings (?)

I've still not heard any comment on *why* (hysterically)
this scheme was (apparently) replaced by one in which
names convey file type information (e.g. foo.sea.hqx).
Is it simply a "lowest common denominator" -- i.e. every
file system (on "every" OS) supports the concept of a file
NAME so that's where it *has* to go?  Yet, why does it
*have* to go there at all?  (i.e. why does file type
*need* to be part of the name -- is it just something
that users have grown accustomed to?)