delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: opendos/1997/03/31/02:00:27

Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 14:41:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: "Jason M. Daniels" <bd733 AT rgfn DOT epcc DOT Edu>
cc: opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
In-Reply-To: <9703280048.AA25501@rgfn.epcc.Edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970328142859.7284Y-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Jason M. Daniels wrote:

> >in several files, due to all the graphics and stuff. Apart from that, it's
> >a fine markup language; we will need a standard covering the exact means of
> >compressing an entire HTML document into a .zip - the name of the 
> >root html file in the .zip should be index.htm, filenames should be 8.3
> >for legacy reasons (people won't be seeing the filenames used in the .zip
> >anyway, so pretty LFNs aren't really necessary).
> 
> Keeping the files in the archive (which I personally think should be 
> .tgz, not .zip, since more platforms support .tgz than .zip) in 8.3 is a 
> good idea, but I think a "directory" file should be included with full 
> LFNs, in case the user wants to browse the archive manually or 
> selectively, or wants to maintain the files. (it's a lot easier to tell 
> what a file is when it has a LFN :)

I disagree with your comments about using tgz instead of zip.
Reason?

1) We are talking about DOS.  The most common archiver for DOS is
   ZIP/PKZIP hands down.  Almost everyone allready has it, or can
   easily get it.  It is very simple to use.  There is even
   WinZIP for those who cant understand the simple command line.

2) Contrary to what you have said, ZIP is available for at least
   as many platforms as TGZ is or more.  The source code for
   ZIP/UNZIP is just as commonly available, and compiles out of
   the box for DOS/all Unices/VMS/amiga, etc....

Although, I agree that adding some parts of UNIX to DOS is
definately an asset (GNU everything, DJGPP, 4DOSish/bash, etc...)
I disagree about trying to change an accepted widely used
standard.  Personally I use RAR in DOS for all my needs, but ZIP
for files that are for other people.  In Linux I use TGZ
excluseively (even though I have ZIP).  I guess my compression
motto is "when in Rome, do like the Romans".

For LFN's, I think we should keep things simple.  We are dealing
with DOS which uses a standard 8.3 format, VFAT will probably be
added for W95 users, and as a IFS later, but the NATIVE format of
DOS is FAT.  Besides, there is no need to look at the filenames.
Type "HELP" and up comes the HTML browser which then extracts
"index.htm" out of "C:\OPENDOS\HELP\HELPHTML.ZIP".  To navigate,
you just use the browser.  If you want to start on a particular
page, just say "HELP FORMAT", and up comes "format.htm" from
HELPHTML.ZIP".  There is no need to manipulate the ZIP file
directly and no need to know what the internal filenames are.  In
fact "format.htm" will probably be a file converted from SGML
sources and end up with a name like HELP0243.HTM or something
close.

Just my ideas anyway.  What do you think?

Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca


- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019