Date   : Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:20:18 +0200
From   : Isabel Cisternas & Robert Schmidt <rschmidt@...>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE : UEF Specification 0.9

Mark Usher wrote:
> >From an archiving point of view, I think this is a good way to go. The
> original program/tape/disc can always be extracted, but having the extra
> info with it is nice. Obviously one file is cleaner, but as Wouter mentioned
> it is also nice to have all "other" infomation in a seperate file. What I
> like best with the single file, is the ability to have everything -
> including multi file loads within a single "game" archive, making the images
> and the emulators alot easier to use.

I some more thoughts on this...

If we needed a "one file for everything" kind of format, why was XML
considered?  With UEF, users will always be dependent on software
written just to process the UEF format.  It's a bit like re-inventing a
filing system within a file (with severe limitations), IMO.

Besides, I thought binary "chunked" formats were "out" by now.  XML is
basically the same idea, just ASCII'fied and standardized and formalized
beyond all recognition.

No, store each logical chunk of information in separate files, each file
in a format widely accepted and created for that specific use.  Often,
as for images or text, there are *many* potential format.  Pick one
today, pick another tomorrow, as long as they're widely used, you'll
hardly notice the difference, ever.

Notice how UEF (currently) supports only ASCII text and raw image
files.  I wouldn't want to put the PDFs, DOCs, JPEGs and GIFs strewn
around TBL! archive into UEFs.  

Thomas, I think the most useful kind of data you could put in a
"instructions", "inlay scans" or "cheats" chunk would be an URL.

I agree that BBC emulators need a *proper* disk and tape imaging format,
and also state snapshots to some degree.  UEF seem to be great,
especially if the disk part will be at least as comprehensive as FDI.

But leave the other data where it belongs, in separate files which I can
view with a normal file viewer.  Lump everything into one directory per
software title, or use a consistent file naming scheme, as I've
attempted at TBL!.

Do we need the extra UEF layer of complexity?  If I want to edit some
text in a game's instructions, can I simply double click the UEF icon,
as I can with a DOC file?  If I want to replace a cover scan with a
higher resolution one, or I'd like to add scans of ads or reviews, will
it be as simply as dragging and dropping in Windows Explorer?

Ah well, enough rethorics - I'm a bit influenced by the election
campaigns here in Norway... ;-)

Thomas, you're doing a fantastic job for the Electron and BBC community,
never doubt that.  But at least my point of view on
"chunked-formats-with-everything" should be clear by now!  :-)


Cheers,
Robert