Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter From: peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: De-macification of the Amiga (Re: The Amiga's Future) Message-ID: <1991Jun24.092659.28842@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX References: <85@ryptyde.UUCP> <1991Jun22.045446.2732@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> <102@ryptyde.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 09:26:59 GMT The Amazing Daniel Tracy: "Responding to the following: "``You managed to completely miss both of the points I made and fastened on a single phrase that you don't care for.'' "I don't understand. You made a statement, and I corrected you." -- <102@ryptyde.UUCP> I know you don't understand. The points that I was making were entirely independent of where the file type was stored. Though an implementation where it was stored in the resource fork (or, equivalently, in a header) would certainly be cleaner. Then you continue: "I wasn't attacking your points. However, they are invalid. You are talking about interchange formats, documents. The interchange format docs on the Macintosh don't NEED a resource fork and couldn't care less if they had one!" -- <102@ryptyde.UUCP> Now I'll have to plead ignorance. This seems again entirely irrelevant to my message. Perhaps you would like to explain what that has to do with: 1. The basic capability of IFF and the Mac's typed files are equivalent. 2. Since the IFF standard is defined in a system-independent manner (and in fact is used in EA programs on the IBM-PC and the Mac as well as the Amiga) it's a superior design. If you want to find out more about IFF, look it up. It's a published standard. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' . 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"