Talk:1301: File Extensions

The title text reference of "hand-aligned data" may refer to ASCII art. 108.162.215.28 05:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC) Alan K.

I think it's also a notable point, that the better rated document formats are more data centric while the low rated formats mix text informations with design elements and finally become pure graphic formats, which often is an indication, that the author didn't use the accurate file type for (mostly) pure text informations. Something I don't understand is the gap between jpg and jpeg. The first suffix is AFAIK only an abbreviation used by older DOS/MS Systems to fullfill the 8.3 limitation for filenames. The note about hand alignment might concern the fact, that hand alignment is more time expensive which might increase the amount of the the author spend in overthink the content before layouting. Also often automated layouting as supported by many modern writing application might lead to unexpected and sometimes wrong results, because the automatism has no semantical knowledge about the authors intention, which might lead to post processed errors Sorry for my bad english, I'm not a natural writer 108.162.231.239 05:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that .jpg and .jpeg are at different levels. Aren't those the same thing? --Mralext20 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That JPG/JPEG thing indeed seems strange. The more important distinction is between JPEGs that are photographs (fine) and those that are not (stupid). Also, pre-PNG, non-photograph GIFs could be just fine. And with all the accounting scandals we've seen, why would those spreadsheet formats get any credibility? -- Dfeuer (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I measured the bars in photoshop to +/- 2pixels. If we scale .tex to a value of 100 like the transcript says, these are the values I get for the bar lengths (rounded to one decimal place) .tex 100 .pdf 89.4 .csv 84.9 .txt 66.5 .svg 64.8 .xls 48.6 .doc 21.2 .png 15.1 .ppt 14.5 .jpg 3.4 .jpeg -8.4 .gif -35.8

Dunno if it is helpful - or even trusted given I'm a first time commenter - but there it is. Closer values than just estimating, though the eyeballed estimates aren't bad. Not going to adjust the actual transcript because I feel that's overstepping my bounds. 108.162.216.56 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)