On Fri, 2001-09-14 at 15:44, Buddha Buck wrote:
> At 03:10 PM 09-14-2001 -0500, Brian Wheeler wrote:
> >I've been thinking alot about the bytecode file format lately. Its
> >going to get really gross really fast when we start adding other
> >(optional) sections to the code.
> >
> >So, with that in mind, here's what I propose:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >What do you guys think?
>
> Have you taken a look at the old Amiga IFF format? It consisted mainly of
> "chunks" identified by a 32-bit type code and a chunk-length code. While
> most implementations were for specific multi-media applications (chunks
> defining sound formats, chunks defining image formats, etc), the standard
> itself was data-neutral.
:) That was one of the references I used. I looked up these formats on
wotsit before proposing:
* IFF
Consistant, but you've got to scan the whole file to find out if a
chunk is even there.
* Doom WAD
Clean format, mini-directory at the end.
* ELF
Overkill, I think, but does give some ideas of the types of sections
we'll be needing.
>
> I believe that Microsoft is using a derivative of that format for some of
> its files, and I think that TIFF files are another instantiation.
>
> It may be worth looking at to avoid re-inventing wheels.
>
>
Agreed.
Brian
