re: container format. Hasn't this been done already, i.e. the X64? And, it's rather moribund (although I think there are fun things one can do with a container). But yes, tradition tends to be a handy bond. And, regarding the thought of a five-character extension: sure, but I think that way lies madness; you'll suggest a modest and reasonable but new way, and before you know it I'll have lost my self-restraint and will suggest a real-like 256-byte header appended to those new formats, and then I'll be suggesting a .D1541 image that includes that header, and that the directory should be located at the front of the image, and......well it's just madness, I tell you!! On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Steve Gray <sjgray@rogers.com> wrote: > Well, why even have multiple extensions? Why not develop a container for > all images and use a single extension for all "commodore disk images". The > answer is... Because of history. "Dxx" started in the dos days and people > are comfortable with old tried-and-true ideas. Even today in the "pc" world > there are few extensions bigger than 3 characters even though the 3 > character limitation hasn't been imposed for a long time. > > Steve > > > > On Jan 27, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Spiro Trikaliotis < > ml-cbmhackers@trikaliotis.net> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > * On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 07:21:49AM -0500 Steve Gray wrote: > >> Perhaps D96 and D99 ;-) > > > > Why not something like *sigh* .d9060 and .d9090? I mean, how many people > > will want to handle such things on a DOS machine, anyway? > > > > Regards, > > Spiro. > > > > -- > > Spiro R. Trikaliotis > > http://www.trikaliotis.net/ > > > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list > Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2014-01-27 23:00:44
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.