Issue: PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC (Version 1)

[Jeff Dalton <jeff%aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK>]

[lmm: from Ballot]

    I can understand why someone might find the need for :UNSPECIFIC
    in Unix unclear, but I think that is because it is not clear what
    filenames would be parsed as pathnames with :UNSPECIFIC type [*];
    :UNSPECIFIC is nonetheless useful for building pathnames directly
    when you know which case you want and need a way to specify it.

    [*] Does a name without "." parse as type NIL or :UNSPECIFIC?
    Different Unix programs use different conventions.  Some are
    willing to merge in a type field, others, such as the C compiler,
    leave names as-is.  So the "right" answer may vary.