Maybe we should have a different name for files that need such special consideration - .pharx or something - and keep plain .phar for less complicated stuff. (Not pharts - you already said that was for bugs ;) Would that make the concept harder to grasp for the end user? I don't know, but I know for sure that _not_ marking files that need the extension in a very obvious way is likely to be problematic.
... unless it's possible for the default stub to 'know' when it's being faced with stuff it can't cope with and die with an explanation on its lips. In which case, ignore my earlier musings.
- Steph (really not thinking straight today)