iiitsh@cybaswan.UUCP (Steve Hosgood) (02/23/90)
In article <1526@krafla.rhi.hi.is> frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) writes: >In article <857@ocsmd.ocs.com> glenn@ocsmd.ocs.com (glenn ford) writes: >> And of course UU, not XX.. > >Don't forget that everybody can use the binaries if they are xxencoded, but >uuencoding them will mean that they become useless to some people. > It seems silly to me that we go through all this procedure of squeezing files (with whatever method) just so we can expand them by 4:3 or worse with (xx/uu)encode. I suggested to Rahul that he incorporate a 7-bit output into 'zoo'. The idea here is of course that 'zoo' directly produces a format that can be sent over UseNet. By this, I assume the inclusion of checksums and the ability to make multi-part files. Since the 7-bit output would not merely be a robotic operation (as in uuencode) I would expect to see a better compression factor. Rahul, by the way, replied to say he would think about it. I suspect though that he's too busy right now. Anyone else fancy a go? I sympathise with the problems the Scandinavians are having with character sets. If 7-bit output *is* added to 'zoo', I would hope that this effect is dealt with. I suppose it would be sensible if one of the Scandinavian people on the net does the work of adding the feature. At least *that* ought to ensure there's no problem! Steve