Re: best format for distribution (SHK? DSK? ZIP?)

[Ivan X <ivanxqz@yahoo.com>]

On 8/1/2010 12:10 AM, Ewen wrote:

>> I use BXY myself for distribution, as that as a SHK file with a BNY
>> wrapper. This means the file type is not important at the receiving end,
>> as it would be with a SHK file, and being an archive of files and
>> folders, it does not matter what kind of disk the recipient wishes to
>> upack to.

On 8/1/10 1:31 PM, in article dqWdnbFcvN_vMsjRnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@giganews.com,
"Michael J. Mahon" <mjmahon@aol.com> wrote:

> The file type of a .shk file is not very important.  ShrinkIt 8-bit
> (don't know about 16-bit) has the option of Open-Apple-S to show all
> files, regardless of type, and allow them to be opened as archives.
> (The ShrinkIt archive, of course, contains all the filetype info on its
> constituent files.)

And not only that, ShrinkIt 8-bit by default will display any file it sees
with recognized archive extensions in the name, such as .SHK or .BXY,
regardless of ProDOS file type, so I was thinking the same thing.

With that said, is there any downside to posting archives as BXY rather than
SHK, since ShrinkIt 8-bit and NuLib2 recognize and transparently handle
them? Are there other tools people use which would make it better to have
the SHK file without the Binary II wrapper?


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---