Andrew Collier wrote: >
> 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? But the difference with the SAD (v2) is its just compressed inside, so whats the problem? Either get the latest version of software which deals with SAD2, or get a program (which Aley mentioned!?) to convert between them if its a problem. Its hardly a big deal. There aren't that many characters available for the end of filenames anyway, if your going to be dos compatible you've got 3... If the file mentions in the header what version it is, its fine - ok, very old software might choke, but then you could just run all sads through a converter (which being new would know that there were two versions and only convert as neccessary)... > 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). If its compressed how could a reader "properly extract all the useful data"? It doesn't realise its compressed. As Aley says, the file has a header, if the programs using the file are written properly, they'll check this header and only open files they know. If it doesn't work its the programs that are at fault not the file format. Fitz -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ#: 11077801 AOL/CServeIM: Flupert
