unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (The Unknown User) (05/12/91)
In article <9105111730.AA08829@apple.com> MQUINN@UTCVM.BITNET writes: >I move that we start using .BNS for 'binscii/shrinkit' files considering >that .BSQ was a popular subfix for Binary II squeezed files. It's a real >pain the behind trying to decifer all the compression formats and having >two different formats using the same subfix really screws things up. >I know there aren't alot of binary II squeezed files on FTP sites (if any) >but there are some floating around on local BBSs. >Anyone second this? Anyone think I'm nuts? (maybe I souldn't have asked that) Yeah I think you're nuts.. Just kidding. I don't really care if the suffix is changed, but since ShrinkIT unpacks 'em whether they're Binary II squeezed files or not, and for all practical purposes everybody that'd have used BLU would be using ShrinkIT by now, it's a moot point.. -- /unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever! unknown@cats.ucsc.edu\ |WANT to help get ULTIMA VI //e or GS written?-mail me. CHEAP CD info-mail me.| \ It's a Late Night World.... Of Love /