1301: "File Extensions"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
BAReFOOt
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 7:48 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby BAReFOOt » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:16 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:Presumably html was omitted because there is no one single value: the trustworthyness depends on the background colour and number of different fonts.


You have no idea what HTML is, do you?

PROTIP: If the author of a HTML document so much as imagined he could possibly dream about imagining he dreamt he thought about layout or visual/audio/… style while writing HTML, it is invalid HTML. That’s what CSS is for. Oh, and professionals use XHTML anyway. As opposed to the certified mentally ill WhatWG luddites.

geniekid
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:11 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby geniekid » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:37 pm UTC

Should add .zip and .exe to the chart, although that might require logarithmic scaling.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Dec 09, 2013 5:59 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
orthogon wrote:Presumably html was omitted because there is no one single value: the trustworthyness depends on the background colour and number of different fonts.


You have no idea what HTML is, do you?

PROTIP: If the author of a HTML document so much as imagined he could possibly dream about imagining he dreamt he thought about layout or visual/audio/… style while writing HTML, it is invalid HTML. That’s what CSS is for. Oh, and professionals use XHTML anyway. As opposed to the certified mentally ill WhatWG luddites.

Isn't CSS some newfangled thing that came a whole year later than the first standard HTML? Isn't HTML with the layout specified perfectly valid HTML 3? HTML is not necessarily HTML 4+...

User avatar
wisnij
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 5:03 pm UTC
Location: a planet called Erp
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby wisnij » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:01 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:Mouseover caption: I have never been lied to by data in a .txt file which has been hand-aligned.


Code: Select all

this  statement
is    false


YOUR MOVE, LOGIC.
I burn the cheese. It does not burn me.

User avatar
david.windsor
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby david.windsor » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:03 pm UTC

You are all making a dangerous assumption, that higher on the chart and to the right = more trustworthy. the there are no labels or scales on either axis.
"All those ... moments, will be lost ... in time, like tears ... in rain."

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:03 pm UTC

wisnij wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:Mouseover caption: I have never been lied to by data in a .txt file which has been hand-aligned.


Code: Select all

this  statement
is    false


YOUR MOVE, LOGIC.


That's not a lie: it's a logic-based-robot self-destruct command!
("Well done, Jim")
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby orthogon » Mon Dec 09, 2013 6:08 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:
orthogon wrote:Presumably html was omitted because there is no one single value: the trustworthyness depends on the background colour and number of different fonts.


You have no idea what HTML is, do you?

PROTIP: If the author of a HTML document so much as imagined he could possibly dream about imagining he dreamt he thought about layout or visual/audio/… style while writing HTML, it is invalid HTML. That’s what CSS is for. Oh, and professionals use XHTML anyway. As opposed to the certified mentally ill WhatWG luddites.

Even better: the trustworthyness of any given html file is entirely determined by the associated style sheet, and can therefore be modified without changing the textual content at all.

I love the idea that the validity of the HTML can depend on the author's innermost thoughts. Presumably, validation tools would have to include some kind of questionnaire to determine the author's mental processes. Or is thoughtcrime detected by more Orwellian means?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:28 pm UTC

Limiting ourselves to the realm of "words and a bit of very basic formatting", where does .rtf fall on this scale?

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby davidstarlingm » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:12 pm UTC

da Doctah wrote:Limiting ourselves to the realm of "words and a bit of very basic formatting", where does .rtf fall on this scale?

I tend to see RTFs which follow in the footsteps of .net black-background webpages.

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

When I was close to graduation, I took my résumé to my school's career services so they could give me tips for improvement and they were stumped that I had it in PDF and couldn't edit it like a Word document. The things they wanted to edit were substantial enough that they re-wrote the thing in Word. At least Times New Roman has a lineage for being optimised for maximum characters to a line/page, for higher information density. Still, I liked my LaTeX/PDF solution.
BAReFOOt wrote:What? NO!

.jpg exists only for those losers whose operating system couldn’t handle anything beyond 8+3 file names! (Like old versions of Windows.)
.jpeg is the only correct extension for image/jpeg (/^JFIF/) files!

P.S.: Why doesn’t this forum have an inline-[code]?

I agree about jpeg files.
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Crissa » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:44 pm UTC

I once submitted my resume to a temp agency - an email with a .txt footer include, .pdf attachment, .htm version, and a URL to the txt and htm versions, and a URL to adobe's pdf reader.

I got back a letter saying 'I could not open the resume, can you send it in Word doc?'

Of course, I could not, this being 1998 and I didn't actually own Microsoft Word.

-Crissa

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:I once submitted my resume to a temp agency - an email with a .txt footer include, .pdf attachment, .htm version, and a URL to the txt and htm versions, and a URL to adobe's pdf reader.

I got back a letter saying 'I could not open the resume, can you send it in Word doc?'

Of course, I could not, this being 1998 and I didn't actually own Microsoft Word.

-Crissa

How can you lack the software to open a .txt file but still be able to open a .doc file? If I remember correctly the windows 95 notepad installation was not optional and Microsoft word was perfectly capable of opening .txt files. That is even besides the odd situation where you have an e-mail client but not a web browser (most of those could open both .htm and .txt files). I'm sorry to say this, but this may have been an easy way (for them) to blow you off...

Showsni
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:09 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Showsni » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:29 pm UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
Crissa wrote:I once submitted my resume to a temp agency - an email with a .txt footer include, .pdf attachment, .htm version, and a URL to the txt and htm versions, and a URL to adobe's pdf reader.

I got back a letter saying 'I could not open the resume, can you send it in Word doc?'

Of course, I could not, this being 1998 and I didn't actually own Microsoft Word.

-Crissa

How can you lack the software to open a .txt file but still be able to open a .doc file? If I remember correctly the windows 95 notepad installation was not optional and Microsoft word was perfectly capable of opening .txt files. That is even besides the odd situation where you have an e-mail client but not a web browser (most of those could open both .htm and .txt files). I'm sorry to say this, but this may have been an easy way (for them) to blow you off...


Yeah, you should have just changed the file extension from .txt to .doc and sent it back.

So how trustworthy is .divx? Or .rm?

And how likely is a .iso/.rar/.zip/.7z to be the thing I actually want?

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

I sometimes receive bug reports in the form of a screenshot inside a .docx file. Maybe they're trying to dress up their .png as something slightly more trustworthy.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

mooncow
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:12 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby mooncow » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:54 pm UTC

uncleroy wrote:Chrome on OS X consistently shows this one:

Image



I didn't believe what this image said. If it had been an SVG I might have considered it more trustworthy.

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 976
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby da Doctah » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:03 am UTC

Showsni wrote:So how trustworthy is .divx? Or .rm?

Slightly more so than .flv or .swf, I should think.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3617
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Dec 10, 2013 12:40 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:
dalcde wrote:I've once received a report in ppt format. Wanted to kill him


I get those all the time. I can't figure what the author was thinking. Worse, I send back a note asking for a text document, and some third-party wiseguy tells me not to denigrate the author's personal style.


Surely the correct response at that point is to (depending on how much effort you want to put in) either find or invent an obscure file format, and use it for a reply.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby ucim » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:29 am UTC

rmsgrey wrote:Surely the correct response at that point is to (depending on how much effort you want to put in) either find or invent an obscure file format, and use it for a reply.
Indeed it is, but you risk the recipient not opening it at all. A recipient who doesn't care what they send you probably doesn't care what you say in response.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:03 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:Isn't CSS some newfangled thing that came a whole year later than the first standard HTML? Isn't HTML with the layout specified perfectly valid HTML 3? HTML is not necessarily HTML 4+...

The first standard HTML was that which ran in WWW.app and had no (or at most minimal, it's been a while) formatting support. IIRC there were hooks for something CSS-like to handle formatting, but no such thing existed yet. (WWW.app was also a WYSIWYG HTML editor, and had a bunch of other features now thought of as "Web 2.0" which were ignored by the web's early adopters until they thought of those things themselves and reinvented them).

Then Netscape, MS, and their successors came in, hacked a shitton of cruft onto what was originally a clean elegant standard, ushering in the dark ages of HTML 2.

The HTML 3 era was an attempt to standardize the awful mess that arose there.

HTML 4 finally put things back how they were meant to be.

XHTML 1 transitioned to a new track toward a glorious future...

And was promptly abandoned by the successors to the successors to the people who screwed everything up in the first place, and ushered in the new dark ages of HTML 5 ITS A LIVING STANDARD WHO NEEDS VERSION NUMBERS LOL

fucking forum, WWW.app is the name of the NeXTSTEP application "WWW", not a URL! Not everything that starts with three Ws is a URL! ugh [edit: fixed now]
Last edited by Pfhorrest on Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby ucim » Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:31 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:fucking forum, http://WWW.app is the name of the NeXTSTEP application "WWW", not a URL! Not everything that starts with three Ws is a URL! ugh
Just below the submit button for a post is another section; the OPTIONS tab is usually selected by default. You can put a checkmark in the "do not automatically parse URLs", and that should kill the www effect for that post. So you could type http://WWW.app and it won't be a link.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:03 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:fucking forum, http://WWW.app is the name of the NeXTSTEP application "WWW", not a URL! Not everything that starts with three Ws is a URL! ugh
Just below the submit button for a post is another section; the OPTIONS tab is usually selected by default. You can put a checkmark in the "do not automatically parse URLs", and that should kill the www effect for that post. So you could type http://WWW.app and it won't be a link.

I'm curious, did you type out that "http://" there or did the forum add it for you automatically? I didn't intend to include any http:// in my earlier post, but noticed that if I previewed, edited, and previewed again or posted, it not only hyperlinked the name of the app but stuck "http://" in front of it too. It looks like that happened when you quoted me too.

Testing: WWW.app was the first web browser.

Hurray!
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6827
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby ucim » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:23 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I'm curious, did you type out that "http://" there
Yes, duplicating what I saw. But now you know the trick. Computers are just lumps of silicon, they cannot dominate us squishy-meatbag-types! We will easily maintain our domin[connection lost]
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
skeptical scientist
closed-minded spiritualist
Posts: 6142
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
Location: San Francisco

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby skeptical scientist » Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:53 am UTC

I want to skip right over untrustworthy statements in .tex documents and straight to latex malware. :twisted:
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.

"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5574
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Eternal Density » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:03 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:Isn't CSS some newfangled thing that came a whole year later than the first standard HTML? Isn't HTML with the layout specified perfectly valid HTML 3? HTML is not necessarily HTML 4+...

The first standard HTML was that which ran in WWW.app and had no (or at most minimal, it's been a while) formatting support. IIRC there were hooks for something CSS-like to handle formatting, but no such thing existed yet. (WWW.app was also a WYSIWYG HTML editor, and had a bunch of other features now thought of as "Web 2.0" which were ignored by the web's early adopters until they thought of those things themselves and reinvented them).

Then Netscape, MS, and their successors came in, hacked a shitton of cruft onto what was originally a clean elegant standard, ushering in the dark ages of HTML 2.

The HTML 3 era was an attempt to standardize the awful mess that arose there.

HTML 4 finally put things back how they were meant to be.

XHTML 1 transitioned to a new track toward a glorious future...

And was promptly abandoned by the successors to the successors to the people who screwed everything up in the first place, and ushered in the new dark ages of HTML 5 ITS A LIVING STANDARD WHO NEEDS VERSION NUMBERS LOL

Quoted for awesomeness :D
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

User avatar
Kazza3
Posts: 146
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:06 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Kazza3 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:16 am UTC

This is the store banner I get, haven't seen it mentioned yet (Chrome):

Image

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9094
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby BlitzGirl » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:50 am UTC

I posted a list of banners in the OTT several nopix ago. The xkcd main page is currently returning images labeled with "g#" in the filename, according to mscha (not sure how long that will continue).
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 3059
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby orthogon » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:20 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:The first standard HTML was that which ran in http://WWW.app and had no (or at most minimal, it's been a while) formatting support. IIRC there were hooks for something CSS-like to handle formatting, but no such thing existed yet. (http://WWW.app was also a WYSIWYG HTML editor, and had a bunch of other features now thought of as "Web 2.0" which were ignored by the web's early adopters until they thought of those things themselves and reinvented them)...

I enjoyed this brief history of html, but I'm having difficulty philosophically with the idea of a WYSIWYG editor for a format that doesn't support formatting and leaves the layout and rendering to the browser. Surely, in this case, WYSIJOPEOWYMG (What You See Is Just One Possible Example Of What You Might Get)?
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:42 pm UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I'm not getting the distinction between .jpeg and .jpg; honestly I've never seen a .jpeg file out in the wild. Though I always use .jpeg for JPEG images just to prove to anyone who gives a shit that I, unlike apparently every software developer on the planet, am aware that Windows has been able to accept filenames with more than three-character extensions since 1995 and every other OS in existence has been able to since their inception so why aren't we using all of them?

Well. That's just it. You don't need them. Any file extension that can't fit into a three-letter-TLA is just being uppity. It's like one of those file names where the author tries to include a description of the file along with a change history and their own credits.

Really. I'm expecting ASCII art to make a comeback in the form of filenames any day now.

But I'm old fashioned. I still believe that any directory or file name which includes a space is an affront to basic decency. Underscores aren't as bad, but they're still a waste of a good character.

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:When I was close to graduation, I took my résumé to my school's career services so they could give me tips for improvement and they were stumped that I had it in PDF and couldn't edit it like a Word document. The things they wanted to edit were substantial enough that they re-wrote the thing in Word. At least Times New Roman has a lineage for being optimised for maximum characters to a line/page, for higher information density. Still, I liked my LaTeX/PDF solution.
BAReFOOt wrote:What? NO!

.jpg exists only for those losers whose operating system couldn’t handle anything beyond 8+3 file names! (Like old versions of Windows.)
.jpeg is the only correct extension for image/jpeg (/^JFIF/) files!

P.S.: Why doesn’t this forum have an inline-[code]?

I agree about jpeg files.

Were you two wearing your hipster glasses when you wrote that? I thought the only ones who had a hard-on for PDF files were Adobe employees themselves. And .jpg works fine for any person smart enough to realize that it's just a .jpeg without the useless 'e'.

User avatar
david.windsor
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:08 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby david.windsor » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:27 pm UTC

Were you two wearing your hipster glasses when you wrote that? I thought the only ones who had a hard-on for PDF files were Adobe employees themselves. And .jpg works fine for any person smart enough to realize that it's just a .jpeg without the useless 'e'.


Don't you remember your PBS kids programs? That 'e' might be a silent 'e'. you'd be in a world of hurt trying to 'Tap' the wraping paper on your gifts this year. be careful dude.
"All those ... moments, will be lost ... in time, like tears ... in rain."

User avatar
EpicanicusStrikes
Random Boners = True Attraction
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:36 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby EpicanicusStrikes » Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:30 pm UTC

david.windsor wrote:
Were you two wearing your hipster glasses when you wrote that? I thought the only ones who had a hard-on for PDF files were Adobe employees themselves. And .jpg works fine for any person smart enough to realize that it's just a .jpeg without the useless 'e'.


Don't you remember your PBS kids programs? That 'e' might be a silent 'e'. you'd be in a world of hurt trying to 'Tap' the wraping paper on your gifts this year. be careful dude.

Oddly enough, the phrases "I'd tap that", and "I'd tape that", are perfectly transposable.

User avatar
ManaUser
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:28 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby ManaUser » Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:49 pm UTC

BAReFOOt wrote:.jpg exists only for those losers whose operating system couldn’t handle anything beyond 8+3 file names! (Like old versions of Windows.)
.jpeg is the only correct extension for image/jpeg (/^JFIF/) files!

Can't we just compromise on .jpe?

Ray Kremer
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:21 pm UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Ray Kremer » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:31 pm UTC

Eternal Density wrote:I sometimes receive bug reports in the form of a screenshot inside a .docx file. Maybe they're trying to dress up their .png as something slightly more trustworthy.

Oh lordy, this is what my father does sometimes with photos and other images that he wants to save for later. Well, WordPerfect instead of MS Word, but the same weird lack of recognition that the image file is already a file all by itself and doesn't need to be put into a document to be able to keep ahold of it.

Here's my store ad:
store_gd_h2_SNR8.png
Image

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:38 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:The first standard HTML was that which ran in http://WWW.app and had no (or at most minimal, it's been a while) formatting support. IIRC there were hooks for something CSS-like to handle formatting, but no such thing existed yet. (http://WWW.app was also a WYSIWYG HTML editor, and had a bunch of other features now thought of as "Web 2.0" which were ignored by the web's early adopters until they thought of those things themselves and reinvented them)...

I enjoyed this brief history of html, but I'm having difficulty philosophically with the idea of a WYSIWYG editor for a format that doesn't support formatting and leaves the layout and rendering to the browser. Surely, in this case, WYSIJOPEOWYMG (What You See Is Just One Possible Example Of What You Might Get)?

Yeah, I suppose that's more like it. What I meant was you could, say, select a block of text and with GUI controls mark it as Header 1, instead of manually typing <H1> before it and </H1> after it in a plain text editor. Less to do with the styling and more to do with the structuring, but still done graphically instead of just by writing code.

ETA: Found this little writeup by Sir Tim himself on what it was like, complete with screenshots. Also turns out I forgot the name, it was WorldWideWeb.app, not WWW.app.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

dalcde
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:49 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby dalcde » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:10 pm UTC

h7
Image
h2
Image
Last edited by dalcde on Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 834
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Dec 10, 2013 11:26 pm UTC

orthogon wrote:I enjoyed this brief history of html, but I'm having difficulty philosophically with the idea of a WYSIWYG editor for a format that doesn't support formatting and leaves the layout and rendering to the browser. Surely, in this case, WYSIJOPEOWYMG (What You See Is Just One Possible Example Of What You Might Get)?

This is really only a problem if there are multiple clients. If there is only one client, there is no need to account for differences between these clients.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5396
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Pfhorrest » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:15 am UTC

PinkShinyRose wrote:
orthogon wrote:I enjoyed this brief history of html, but I'm having difficulty philosophically with the idea of a WYSIWYG editor for a format that doesn't support formatting and leaves the layout and rendering to the browser. Surely, in this case, WYSIJOPEOWYMG (What You See Is Just One Possible Example Of What You Might Get)?

This is really only a problem if there are multiple clients. If there is only one client, there is no need to account for differences between these clients.

Except that every instance of that one client could apply whatever style sheet the user wanted to the data, so what you saw might not necessarily be exactly (visually) what another user saw, if they were running a different style sheet.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
cjmcjmcjmcjm
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 5:15 am UTC
Location: Anywhere the internet is strong

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby cjmcjmcjmcjm » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:55 am UTC

skeptical scientist wrote:I want to skip right over untrustworthy statements in .tex documents and straight to latex malware. :twisted:

I thought Donald Knuth mathematically proved malware wasn't possible in TeX.
EpicanicusStrikes wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:I'm not getting the distinction between .jpeg and .jpg; honestly I've never seen a .jpeg file out in the wild. Though I always use .jpeg for JPEG images just to prove to anyone who gives a shit that I, unlike apparently every software developer on the planet, am aware that Windows has been able to accept filenames with more than three-character extensions since 1995 and every other OS in existence has been able to since their inception so why aren't we using all of them?

Well. That's just it. You don't need them. Any file extension that can't fit into a three-letter-TLA is just being uppity. It's like one of those file names where the author tries to include a description of the file along with a change history and their own credits.

Really. I'm expecting ASCII art to make a comeback in the form of filenames any day now.

But I'm old fashioned. I still believe that any directory or file name which includes a space is an affront to basic decency. Underscores aren't as bad, but they're still a waste of a good character.

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote:When I was close to graduation, I took my résumé to my school's career services so they could give me tips for improvement and they were stumped that I had it in PDF and couldn't edit it like a Word document. The things they wanted to edit were substantial enough that they re-wrote the thing in Word. At least Times New Roman has a lineage for being optimised for maximum characters to a line/page, for higher information density. Still, I liked my LaTeX/PDF solution.
BAReFOOt wrote:What? NO!

.jpg exists only for those losers whose operating system couldn’t handle anything beyond 8+3 file names! (Like old versions of Windows.)
.jpeg is the only correct extension for image/jpeg (/^JFIF/) files!

P.S.: Why doesn’t this forum have an inline-[code]?

I agree about jpeg files.

Were you two wearing your hipster glasses when you wrote that? I thought the only ones who had a hard-on for PDF files were Adobe employees themselves. And .jpg works fine for any person smart enough to realize that it's just a .jpeg without the useless 'e'.

What do you think about .torrent files? OK, not the best example, as many torrents are cesspools for needing batch renaming or some fucking cunt making the torrent a zip file instead of the individual files. What about Mac OS, where it sometimes hides/doesn't have file extensions? Also, I prefer spaces to underscores, as they work better with search tools (and more readable, too).
frezik wrote:Anti-photons move at the speed of dark

DemonDeluxe wrote:Paying to have laws written that allow you to do what you want, is a lot cheaper than paying off the judge every time you want to get away with something shady.

dalcde
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:49 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby dalcde » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:43 am UTC

cjmcjmcjmcjm wrote: Also, I prefer spaces to underscores, as they work better with search tools (and more readable, too).


Apparently you don't use the command line :)

ShadedKnight
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:35 am UTC

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby ShadedKnight » Wed Dec 11, 2013 5:26 am UTC

ManaUser wrote:
BAReFOOt wrote:.jpg exists only for those losers whose operating system couldn’t handle anything beyond 8+3 file names! (Like old versions of Windows.)
.jpeg is the only correct extension for image/jpeg (/^JFIF/) files!

Can't we just compromise on .jpe?


Why not just .file?

On an unrelated-to-the-comic note, anyone else getting a lot of "Something went wrong" when randomizing comics? I've never seen it happen before.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1301: "File Extensions"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:40 am UTC

If we're still doing this, here's another Wikipedia-themed banner:

Image
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Archgeek, Leovan and 28 guests