Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter
From: peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: De-macification of the Amiga (Re: The Amiga's Future)
Message-ID: <1991Jun24.092659.28842@Sugar.NeoSoft.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <85@ryptyde.UUCP> <1991Jun22.045446.2732@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> <102@ryptyde.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1991 09:26:59 GMT

The Amazing Daniel Tracy:
	"Responding to the following:

	"``You managed to completely miss both of the points I made and
fastened on a single phrase that you don't care for.''

	"I don't understand. You made a statement, and I corrected you."

			-- <102@ryptyde.UUCP>

I know you don't understand. The points that I was making were entirely
independent of where the file type was stored. Though an implementation
where it was stored in the resource fork (or, equivalently, in a header)
would certainly be cleaner.

Then you continue:

	"I wasn't attacking your points. However, they are invalid. You are
talking about interchange formats, documents. The interchange format docs
on the Macintosh don't NEED a resource fork and couldn't care less if they
had one!"

			-- <102@ryptyde.UUCP>

Now I'll have to plead ignorance. This seems again entirely irrelevant to my
message. Perhaps you would like to explain what that has to do with:

	1. The basic capability of IFF and the Mac's typed files are
	   equivalent.

	2. Since the IFF standard is defined in a system-independent manner
	   (and in fact is used in EA programs on the IBM-PC and the Mac as
	   well as the Amiga) it's a superior design.

If you want to find out more about IFF, look it up. It's a published standard.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'   <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
                   'U`    "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
