Re: DSK format specification

["Michael Pender" <mpender@hotmail.com>]

Charlie <charlied@NOSPAMbboard.com> wrote in message
besupt01lc@enews4.newsguy.com">news:besupt01lc@enews4.newsguy.com...
>
> Rather than creating an entirely new "DSK" format, I would suggest that
you add
> your features to the Universal Disk Image (2IMG) format.  It is, in my
opinion,
> the most flexible format.  It uses a header.  Specific information can be
found
> at:
>
> http://www.a2central.com/programming/filetypes/ftne00130.html
>
> Charlie

That's not a bad suggestion; it looks like the changes could be incorporated
by using a new version number for the image file format.

However, I'm concerned that adding a sub-type to an existing file type may
do more harm than good.  A person could not tell from the suffix that this
is a new file format that may be incompatible with older utilities.

I think that at least the sub-type should be changed, i.e. $E0/$0130 -->
$E0/$0131

I think we should also deal with the ProDOS ambiguous date problem by using
at least an 8-bit field for the archive creation date.

Proposed date logic:
    0 --> <no date>, otherwise
    1900 + value of 8-bit field --> range from 1901 to 2155

I think 8 bits should adequately cover the lifespan of the Apple II, but I
suppose we could use a 16-bit field... :-)

- Mike