Why do we still name files '.jpg' and '.mpg'?

[Bootprint]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Interestingly Mac OS handles both .gay and .ghey file extensions the same.

Closet getting dark? 🙂

 

[Cerb]

It's old standbies from DOS. Period.
However, most programs don't use the extension for anything anyway (save Explorer, I guess, for associations), and will play an ogg file just fine if you rename it as an MP3. Similarly, MPG, MPE, MPEG, JPG, JPE, JPEG, etc. work fine. In fact, .notfred_asks_stupid_questions would work as well. 😀
They are most useful for identification as you read them. See blah.htm and know it's a text file that may or may not work in a goven web browser.
Also nice for grouping, since you could have
blah.htm
blah.gif
blah.jpg
blah.class
...and they'll show up, when sorted by name, in a nice little group.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Cerb
It's old standbies from DOS. Period.
However, most programs don't use the extension for anything anyway (save Explorer, I guess, for associations), and will play an ogg file just fine if you rename it as an MP3. Similarly, MPG, MPE, MPEG, JPG, JPE, JPEG, etc. work fine. In fact, .notfred_asks_stupid_questions would work as well. 😀
They are most useful for identification as you read them. See blah.htm and know it's a text file that may or may not work in a goven web browser.
Also nice for grouping, since you could have
blah.htm
blah.gif
blah.jpg
blah.class
...and they'll show up, when sorted by name, in a nice little group.

Is there an echo? 🙂

 

[filmmaker]

Originally posted by: notfred
We gave up using '.htm' a long time ago in favor of '.html'. Why aren't we using '.mpeg' and .'jpeg' more often?

I know a lot of people that still use .htm for their files. Dreamweaver still has it as an extension if someone prefers to use it.

 

[thomsbrain]

i tried to open my website from a CD on an imac and the piece of sh!t wouldn't do it because it couldn't handle ".html" die mac die.

 

[dullard]

For me there are two reasons.
1) Whenever I save a file, by default it gives .jpg and .mpg. Why would I take the time and effort to rename each and every file to add one redundant letter?
2) I frequently program with older programming languages and older compilers that all cannot handle more than 3 letters in the extension.

My question is since .jpg is far more widely used, why should anyone bother to switch to .jpeg? Why not just make .jpg the single proper extension?

 

[EyeMWing]

I still use .htm for my HTML files.
Actually, nowadays I've migrated to just naming all my HTML with a .php extension (Regardless of whether I'm really using any PHP - but out of habit)

 

[PlatinumGold]

i could be wrong, but DOS reads the .HTML as = to .HTM since the L is truncated.

However the same is NOT true of .mpg vs .mpeg.

 

[bleuiko]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
3-letter extensions identified the type of file to the OS in DOS, which I believe stole it from CP/M. The OS needed to know that .BAT for example should be fed to the batch-file interpreter while .EXE should be fed to the program loader.

So much existing code still assumes 3-letter extensions that using .jpeg for example would keep that code from opening the file properly, or even keep the file from showing up in "open file" dialog boxes that filter out files by their extension.

Name an application that will recognize a file named '.jpg' but not one named '.jpeg'.

MS Photo Editor that comes with Office. I just tried to open a rebate image with JPEG tag and it gave an error.... renamed it to JPG and it opened fine. I like the JPEG extension... but oh well, somethings take time to change.

 

[Cerb]

Originally posted by: dullard
For me there are two reasons.
1) Whenever I save a file, by default it gives .jpg and .mpg. Why would I take the time and effort to rename each and every file to add one redundant letter?
2) I frequently program with older programming languages and older compilers that all cannot handle more than 3 letters in the extension.

My question is since .jpg is far more widely used, why should anyone bother to switch to .jpeg? Why not just make .jpg the single proper extension?

...because you can add "support" for .jpeg as well and be use either.