On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: > > >You are always able to read the contents of an archive, so it can have > any > > >extension, but I > > >really preffer hte original one (packed SAD will be still SAD). > > > > IMHO, you shouldn't have the same extension for the compressed image and > > for the uncompressed image...
> No no no. > We should have the least number of extensions as possible. Why? Surely it is better to have different extensions for distinguishable file types. > It is be possible to use only one extension for > compressed and uncompressed DSK/SAD and SimCoupe must > detect the contents of a file, not the extension. No no no, the filename extension should be meaningful to the user (as well as to the computer, if the computer takes any notice of it anyway). Currently, there are versions of SimCoupe which can read .dsk files and .sad files, but will not be able to read future compressed versions of those files. If the next SimCoupe version saves compressed files with the same extension, you won't be able to tell, without looking inside the file, whether the image is compressed or not - some people would be unable to load the file *and they wouldn't know why not*. That would be a Bad Thing [TM]. > Internally packed SAD is still a SAD. > Also, DSK shouldn't be compressed since some people > may want to work with it (Linux???). Exactly. If you use a standard compression alogrithm (but still internal to SimCoupe) and save the files with the standard extention for that algorithm, then everybody can still use the file. Let's say the new SimCoupe/Win32 saves a file as a .dsk.gz (for example). People with the same version can just load the file, but everybody else can also use it because they know how to decompress it first. I don't think the long filename should be a problem - how many people still use DOS outside of Windows95/98/NT any more? Andrew -- -- Andrew Collier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- My other -- http://mnemotech.ucam.org -- .sig is a -- Part 3 Materials Science, Cambridge -- PDF file --
