Re: BinSCII v2.0 ??????

[dempson@swell.actrix.gen.nz (David Empson)]

In article <2i6mnj$rr2@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
mspaeth@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Wayne Gretzky) writes:
> In article <2i6c4a$rir@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu>,
> Michael Foegelle <foegelle@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >I never have quite understood why the Apple 
> >internet community didn't just go ahead and adopt UUENCODE like everyone 
> >else, although of course Apple users always must be different..  (Flame 
> >bait there I know, but..)  Anyone know the history of Binscii?  
> 
> BINSCII is more efficient than UUENCODE...

No it isn't.  The data expansion ratio of BinSCII and UUEncode are
exactly the same (three data bytes are transmitted as four characters).

The main advantage of BinSCII (over UUEncode) is it is easier to use.
The files are automatically segmented into chunks which are small
enough to post on Usenet and send via E-Mail, and the BinSCII
extracting programs automatically handle putting the parts back in the
right order.  You have to do these steps by hand with UUEncode.

In addition, BinSCII encodes the ProDOS directory information, such as
exact file size, creation and modification date & time, file type and
auxiliary type.

This feature isn't so important now that we have ShrinkIt, but it can
be useful for small files.
-- 
David Empson                                                               
dempson@swell.actrix.gen.nz                                                
Snail mail: P.O. Box 27-103, Wellington, New Zealand