Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!readdm
From: readdm@walt.cc.utexas.edu (David M. Read)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: UUencode vs. XXencode (was: Automated extraction of c.p.i.b...)
Message-ID: <34630@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 90 19:49:09 GMT
References: <34590@ut-emx.UUCP> <37392@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP
Reply-To: readdm@walt.cc.utexas.edu (David M. Read)
Organization: UT-Austin / Jerry's Kids
Lines: 61

In article <37392@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> wales@CS.UCLA.EDU (Rich Wales) writes:
>
>I must disagree.
>
> [discussion of why uuencode gets munged by EBCDIC converters]
>
>Getting all affected machines to "fix" their ASCII/EBCDIC translation
>tables is a gargantuan task that has essentially been given up as hope-
>less.
>
>If we aren't willing to use something as completely different as Brad
>Templeton's ABE, we should at least change to "xxencode".  "xxencode" is
>precisely the same as "uuencode", except that the 64 characters used to
>encode the file are taken from a set that is known to be immune to
>ASCII/EBCDIC mangling (specifically, "xxencode" uses upper and lower
>case letters, digits, and the plus and minus signs).
>
>It would be trivial to add an option to a "uuencode" clone to let it
>support "xxencode" as well -- since, as I said, the file structure is
>utterly identical except for the character code.
>

It is for exactly this reason that I have started to add xxencode 
capability to my new code...a beta version ran last night and
will be available sometime in the next week or so.

However...I have great problems with blaming the conversion problems
on uuencode...the fault lies in these faulty EBCDIC converters.  I
must confess general ignorance of EBCDIC, but I can't see that writing
a simple look-up-table conversion routine would be all that difficult.
It seems to me that if the rest of the world is using one standard that
it's pretty silly for a small group to use another standard if they
intend to interact with the world...and that it rests with the smaller
group to deal with the problems, rather than the larger group.  Recall
Spock's words from Trek II: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs
of the few..." :-)

At any rate, I think that the majority will decide here...if the  
capability for xxencode exists and is widely available, and there
is a general demand for its use, then I imagine that it will 
spontaneously become the new standard.  In general I have no preference
for uuencoding vs. xxencoding...that's why I'll include it in the next
version of my code.

I still think that uuencode will remain the standard, though; there are
too many people out there with UNIX boxes which alredy have uuencode 
installed on them, and they're too lazy to go converting to a new 
program.  I have watched the posts come and go over the last 2 years,
and I have *never* seen an xx-encoded post...they've all been uuencoded!

So I cast this discussion to the users...by choosing which method you use
to post, you will choose which method the rest of the world uses to decode.

Enjoy it either way, and let's try to keep this debate friendly!  So
far it's been great fun!


-Dave                                 | LAMPF and UT don't believe that 
 Dave Read: read@lampf.lanl.gov       | their people have opinions.  Who 
            read@physics.utexas.edu   | am I to disillusion them? 
            readdm@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | #include <cutepicture.h>