"Anders K." wrote:
> 
> > While I think the usage of .pov is unquestionnable, I never
> > liked too much .inc, which is way too generic. .mcr is not
> > much better. I think .pvi and .pvm would be better (or .povi
> > and .povm), because they'd be more unique to POV.
> 
> Also, there is the completely generic .ini extension.

This one is not so easy.

There is an unformulated "ini" standard. Ini files can be
broken into sections (lines with [foobar]), and they are made
of pairs of keyword=value, with lines commented (iirc) with a
semicolon.

POV follows this convention (although it authorizes command-
line options to be included as well, which is not standard),
so imho it can use the .ini extension.

Now, of course, comes the problem of syntax highlighting.
While any program can highlight .ini files (just highlighting
[sections] and ;comments), it's better if it knows the
authorized keywords so the user can quickly see typos, which
is the aim of syntax highlighting.

But in the case of .ini files, I think the best to do is to
use a modeline (emacs and vim allow that), that is a special
comment at the beginning or end of file.

Or use .pvc/.povc (POV config).

NOTE: I know of course that the user can already name the
files as (s)he wishes. What I'm talking about is default.
And again, sorry, I shouldn't have brought this .pvi, .pvm
issue here.

-- 
Adrien Beau - adr### [at] freefr - http://adrien.beau.free.fr
 Mes propos n'engagent que moi et en aucun cas mes employeurs

Post a reply to this message