that would be renaming the file extension but keeping the same format opening it up in an app that breaks it totally, then saving that and sharing it with a Windows user and spending an hour with them trying to make it work because they have to see it!!!
You know who used to do that? Microsoft Teams. I would take photos with my phone and upload them via Teams, Teams would display them just fine but saving them teams would name them .png (even though they were jpeg) and I couldn’t open them with the gnome image viewer (this is also how I found out that the image viewer prioritizes extension over magic byte (which seems stupid to me).
I would say that’s not comparable. One process (screenshotting or taking a photo as PNG) results in a PNG as the output. The other process results in an image of the same format as the output. I guess at best you could make a philosophical argument as to what is ontologically a PNG: is it something that ends in .png, or is it a file that follows the PNG format? I think most people would say the latter, so if we say the definition of something is just a description of how it’s used, then the former process results in a PNG and the latter process does not.
Also, how is screenshotting an “entirely new image” in a way that e.g. putting it into GIMP and exporting to PNG isn’t? That’s doing the same thing. You know there isn’t some “canonical” JPEG to PNG algorithm, right?
Where is “changing the file type extension” in the name?
That has to be Chaotic Evil.
that would be renaming the file extension but keeping the same format opening it up in an app that breaks it totally, then saving that and sharing it with a Windows user and spending an hour with them trying to make it work because they have to see it!!!
You’ll quickly learn which software trusts extensions and which uses MIME type detection
You know who used to do that? Microsoft Teams. I would take photos with my phone and upload them via Teams, Teams would display them just fine but saving them teams would name them .png (even though they were jpeg) and I couldn’t open them with the gnome image viewer (this is also how I found out that the image viewer prioritizes extension over magic byte (which seems stupid to me).
That’s not on the chart because it doesn’t convert it. It only renames it. A JPEG ending with .png is still a JPEG
That’s what the mimetype cult wants you to believe.
One could argue that they have converted it, but it was done poorly.
In a similar sense, the screenshots and phone photos are not conversions. They are entirely new images.
I would say that’s not comparable. One process (screenshotting or taking a photo as PNG) results in a PNG as the output. The other process results in an image of the same format as the output. I guess at best you could make a philosophical argument as to what is ontologically a PNG: is it something that ends in
.png, or is it a file that follows the PNG format? I think most people would say the latter, so if we say the definition of something is just a description of how it’s used, then the former process results in a PNG and the latter process does not.Also, how is screenshotting an “entirely new image” in a way that e.g. putting it into GIMP and exporting to PNG isn’t? That’s doing the same thing. You know there isn’t some “canonical” JPEG to PNG algorithm, right?