Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpcvra.cv.hp.com!rnews!hpcvbbs!akcs.dnickel
From: akcs.dnickel@hpcvbbs.UUCP (Derek S. Nickel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: Why ASC over UUENCODE?
Message-ID: <27b85822:2016.1comp.sys.handhelds;1@hpcvbbs.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 91 21:40:07 GMT
References: <1991Feb11.230500.9590@javelin.es.com>
Lines: 17

Pete,

UUENCODE/UUDECODE is far from being a standard.  At least I have never
laid eyes on a version of UUENCODE for my PC.

The idea of the ASC routines is that they are totally independent of the
computer you use as host.  You don't need a version of ASC for each
system that people might use.

Two things:
1) it would have been nice to have ASC built-in to the '48 (but its not)
2) a host-based (PC or other) program that would translate an ASC file to
binar with checksum validation.  I think something like this has been
posted in the past, but I missed catching it.

As far as I can tell, UUENCODE is just as hard (or harder) to get as ASC.

        Derek S. Nickel