On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Aley Keprt wrote: > I must say again, that I mean internal compression of SAD, > which won't compile the file header.
But isn't it easier just to compress the whole thing with zlib? > I'm author of SAD, so I think I am allowed to make the > new version of SAD. SAD has a header, there will be > version 2 ID-byte, so any program will see it. Not so very long ago you were complaining about people making up their own file formats. > ad Microsoft: > Not only Word, but many other programs (I use e.g. Corel Draw) > declare new file format versions, when NECESSARY. > This is normal, programs are developed during a long period > and new funcions come each day. > If somebody says "Microsoft did new DOC format '97, and no > program can read it. It was bad," it is stupid. > Microsoft MUST use new format, since it is the first real unicode, > which is internationally necessary. > ANY software can have newer versions of files, which other programs > can read. This is LIFE! Yes obviously. I didn't say anything different, don't patronise me. BUT the new incompatible files should have been given different extensions. If somebody gives me a .doc file, I don't know if I can read it or not until I waste my time trying. You don't think this situation is bad? Anyway, a well thought-out file format usually shouldn't need to be backwards incompatible. Look at html, for example (Old readers can't interpret new features, but they can properly extract all the useful data they can handle). Andrew -- -- Andrew Collier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- My other -- http://mnemotech.ucam.org -- .sig is a -- Part 3 Materials Science, Cambridge -- PDF file --
