ScandInBei
ScandInBei t1_ixtoaoo wrote
Reply to comment by Luthemplaer in ELI5: In recent years, new formats like webp and jfif have started popping up. However, if I rename them to gif or jpeg, they still work. How can it be that renaming the extension doesn't ruin the image format? Why do they even exist then? by Luthemplaer
The sw has to explicitly decide (and a programmer implement it) to check the file if it's a renamed file.
The simpler way is to try to open the file and decode it according to the file format and if it fails show an error message.
So it Photoshop could do it, but someone has to program it and it would cost money to do it.
ScandInBei t1_ixtvd1j wrote
Reply to comment by donal23 in ELI5: In recent years, new formats like webp and jfif have started popping up. However, if I rename them to gif or jpeg, they still work. How can it be that renaming the extension doesn't ruin the image format? Why do they even exist then? by Luthemplaer
> Because that would mean that renaming an executable to an .jpg and having someone open it in said software, executes the file.
What? That's just wrong. That's not at all how software works.