Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!compass!worley From: worley@compass.com (Dale Worley) Newsgroups: comp.archives.admin Subject: Re: archive normal form Message-ID: Date: 26 Jun 91 14:49:02 GMT References: <1991Jun25.063045.22031@mel.dit.csiro.au> <17493.Jun2607.22.3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: root@compass.com Distribution: world Organization: Compass, Inc., Wakefield, MA, U.S.A. Lines: 21 In-reply-to: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu's message of 26 Jun 91 07:22:31 GMT In article <17493.Jun2607.22.3191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: Methinks 19910520220500 f export.lcs.mit.edu:contrib/ups-2.31.tar.Z 963435 ftp,30 is both more readable and more accurate. Your separation between ``directory'' and ``file'' is a mistake, because some operating systems can express neither the null directory nor more than one directory in a single command. It's much more logical to have a composite filename, However, FTP is oriented to "directory and file name" access -- you CD to a directory, then you GET a file. Thus, it's best to have two fields -- the first one is "the argument to give to CD" and the second is "the argument to give to GET". Logically, it's still losing, but it corresponds more closely with the model FTP presents. Dale Worley Compass, Inc. worley@compass.com -- The best way to demand something unreasonable is to call it a "freedom".