Re: Why BinSCII?

[toddpw@avarice.ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

mnementh@netcom.com (David R. Villegas) writes:

>The version of uudecode that I use handles headers and footers well.

Good for you. Not everyone is so lucky.

How about errors? The uudecodes I've used tend to ignore checksum errors and
happily give you a trashed output file with no warning messages at all.

>Also, binscii seems to be a more compact format than uudecode.

You do save a couple characters (length and checksum) but that's about it.

>I'm now wondering why a non-Apple-specific version of binscii isn't a standard

This is what BinSCII II was intended to be almost from the start. The first
implementation has only a couple of issues left (and they're nasty ones,
which is why it's taking so long) before we unleash it on an unsuspecting net.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu