Filetype for RAW image files

would be useful if ROOL would release a listing of all official filetype allocations.

I agree. And if it’s within a closed section of the wiki, then it wouldn’t be “self-published” and could therefore be a definitive reference for use in Wikipedia.

astonishing to see a list of RISC OS filetypes on Wikipedia

Not so astonishing when you consider that there are plenty of other such topics there with equivalent lists etc. Just because it’s a niche platform doesn’t necessarily mean that the topic isn’t notable enough for inclusion. If someone’s browsing through RISC OS information and wonders about filetypes, then it makes sense to me to include such info within the encyclopedia rather than send said person off to any one of a number of other sites.

Wiki saying that open wikis can’t be considered reliable. The irony is killing me.

Understood, but the theory AIUI is that Wikipedia, while being an open encyclopedia, has policies regarding verifiability, etc. Regardless of how correct and reasonable the interpretation and application of such policies is, there is a wide community of editors who will attempt to decide if info warrants inclusion or not. Deletion discussions come and go, closed-minded editors and fanboys are criticised, and the world keeps turning. The content’s there, the topic is notable (I’ll add some PRM, user guide, magazine refs one day), and including such a long list within the main article would cause it to be too bulky and give it undue weight.

Wikipedia, while being an open encyclopedia, has policies regarding verifiability

Their policy is that verification is somebody else’s problem, somewhere else. Wikipedia is an aggregator of information available elsewhere, it should not be seen as a primary storage location for anything.

I’ve updated https://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/File%20Types accordingly, but I’d encourage others to do so also rather than post lists of changes here.

I’ve removed the category but added a status so we can tell if a filetype is officially allocated, and to deprecate known duplications.

Excellent changes, nemo. Much clearer. Is anyone with access to the ‘official’ allocation list going to have the time to update with allocated ticks? I notice that there are a number of duplicates … indeed, I have just added another myself!

I’ve just added &16C DoomWad to the Wiki. Although this filetype is used in my Doom & Deth ports, Lee Noar (the original porter of !Deth) used it first (IFAIK)…..
(or maybe it was Andreas Dehmel of DIY doom fame)

Jeff

Much neater – thanks nemo

Added: official 9FB Basalt – a BASIC program translated to use the Basalt module

Such a file will be displayed as BASIC in later versions of StrongED, but it cannot be edited.

I’ve updated the filetype table with a few more filetypes and also reversed the order, because the most common filetypes ought to come first.

Some definitions:

Drawing

Some kind of vector (not pixel) based illustration.

Picture

Some kind of pixel based illustration.

Image

A bytewise reproduction of the contents of some medium, normally handled by an image filing system.

Document

Some kind of primarily textual and potentially multipage presentation.

It’s not a good idea to refer to Sprites as an “image” in the same context as Mac discs, DFS dumps and ISOs.

Updated my &17F, added another &112 (Teletext frame), added a description of &B25 (it’s a document description file), and flagged all of the Ovation(Pro) filetypes as being officially allocated – David confirmed that to me last night, and said it’s the same for all of the Beebug stuff [I think Hearsay has scripts and things but I don’t know offhand the filetypes].

(adding this here as the Wiki doesn’t appear to have a “what did you change” note like the other wiki)

BTW, Nemo, did you flip the list programmatically or manually?

(adding this here as the Wiki doesn’t appear to have a “what did you change” note like the other wiki)

Clicking on the “See Changes” link doesn’t show you fetching pink and green highlights for removed and added text then? Does here.

Yes, I get the battenberg cake effect ;-) but that isn’t a tidy reason, just a physical list of changes.
For instance, with marking the Ovation files as official, how do you know that isn’t just an assumption I’ve made unless I say “asked the author”? The pink and whitegreen shows what has changed, not why.

I’ve updated the list again with a few more filetypes and corrections gleaned from scouring my discs and ancient filetype-recognising applications.

I’ve removed the full stops from the file extensions because they don’t serve to distinguish them from MIME types – there is no confusion – and they’re confusing textile.

And finally I’ve corrected the formatting problems that made the main table slightly too thin.