"File types"

Zane H. Healy wrote: Well, there have been "conventions" since The Dawn of Time for *naming* files. But, those have always been just *conventions* and not really "enforceable" (nor ENFORCED!). Personally, I dislike the idea of having a name carry "type" information (whether that be the name of a file, variable, procedure/method/function, etc.). My name isn't: offspring_Male_mother_Mary_father_...._Don yet, people *somehow* seem to know who I am :-/ So, I don't see why other naming *conventions* should carry all that baggage as well. Even in the limit case (i.e. only one application exists with which you could use to "open" *all* JPEGs), is there still any reason why you need to name a file: PictureOfUsSkiing.<photograph> Granted, you might have: Skiing.<photograph> // i.e. photo Skiing.<expense_tabulation> // i.e. spreadsheet Skiing.<test> // i.e. invitation to ski trip ... But, they could still all be *called* "Skiing" -- with some other attribute (e.g. file creator) that actually differentiates them. So, it seems like the only reason to have that attribute *visible* is because you want your directory listing (graphical or otherwise) to be able to differentiate between the N different "Skiing" files that you might have (in that particular container). I.e. so that you could "select" (e.g., "click") the one that you are interested in. Wouldn't, instead, a better (?) scheme be to show/list all "Skiing" files as a single item and, when selected, prompt the user for which *aspect* of "Skiing" he was interested in (i.e. "Do you want to view the photo, see the expense summary or read the invitation?"). Note that this (above) is predicated on the assumption that you would *allow* name collisions (overloading based on the file name) and resolve them some other way. If this isn't allowed, then there would be no ambiguity and the user would be free to pick what he/she wants to call the file without someone imposing an artificial "file type" as part of the namespace. [N.B. *You* can get around the "file extension" problem by creating your own file type for JPGs that you would like to open with some *other* application. But, it's an inconvenience...] So, I'm still wondering *why* this came to be (hence the historical reference)