Rob Cozens wrote: >> It sounds like you would not be leveraging the structure of a "data >> stack" as the underlying format for the archive? If you aren't going >> to leverage a "data stack" then maybe it should just be a ZIP or TAR >> engine so as to be a more compatible format? > > Interesting idea, Alex. Yes, one could incorporate cards & nested > groups to create the archive design and index and never need to > append the individually-compressed files. I'll paste your suggestion > next to the far back burner where the project is barely cooking. > > In answer to why not use ZIP or TAR, my goal is to create a universal > folder compression/decompression utility in Transcript for deployment > across all Revolution hardware platforms. Ideally, I want to > simplify serendipity_downloader.htm to contain one file bundle for > Mac, Windows, & Unix developers in the archive format and one > compression/decompression utility stack. It also seems to me such a > tool could easily evolve into a generic Revolution stack/standalone > installer.
The nice thing about using tar as the format is that you save the 2MB engine size to decompress. -- Richard Gaskin Fourth World Media Corporation ___________________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FourthWorld.com _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
